TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed. This Court is of the considered view that respondent-accused persons deserve bail on merits and so, impugned orders granting bail to respondents-accused persons are not liable to be interfered with, as the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality - petition dismissed. - CRL.REV.P. 107/2018 And CRL.REV.P. 1180/2018 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2019 - MR. SUNIL GAUR J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan CGSC Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC, Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.K. Handoo, Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Mr. Aditya Chaudhary and Mr. Hemant Shah, Advocates Mr. Madhav Khurana Mr. Vighnaraj Pasayat, Advocates ORDER In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sactions involving name of some individuals including Income Tax Officers. Thereafter, an ECIR was registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the present applicant Gagan Dhawan was called by the ED on 13 different occasions, who joined the investigation and his statement was recorded. It was alleged that present applicant was known to the Directors of SBL Group, namely Chetan and Nitin. Thereafter, on 25.10.2017, another FIR was registered by CBI for offences u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and same being scheduled offences, a fresh ECIR was registered by ED on 27.10.2017 and the present applicant Gagan Dhawan was summoned and arrested on 30.10.2017 and thereafter, he was remanded to ED cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his statement that accused Ranjit Malik used to work for Gagan Dhawan for collection /delivery of cash from / to various persons / places. As the accused/ applicant did not report to the summons issued to him on various dates and gave evasive replies, that he was arrested on 02.08.2018. It is further the case that even during his custody, accused/ applicant kept on giving evasive replies and failed to account for the cash deposits of ₹ 57,30,500/- made in his and his wife s account at various intervals. It is noted in the impugned order of 4th January, 2018 that the investigation of this case is complete and complaint/ charge-sheet has been filed and that respondent- Gagan Dhawan has clean antecedents. Operative portion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itute a class apart and a different approach in matters of bail has to be adopted in cases involving economic offences. To submit so, learned CGSC relied upon Supreme Court s decision in Chaman Lal Vs. State of U.P. Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 525; Sunil Grover Vs. State 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3539; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 439; Gautam Kundu Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), Govt. of India through Manoj Kumar (2015) 16 SCC 1; Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508 and Sunil Dahiya vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5566, to seek quashing of impugned orders. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for respondents vehemently cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lled. It was submitted that respondents-accused persons have already joined the investigation and now the case is at the stage of charge. Thus, it was submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and so, these petitions deserve dismissal. The submissions advanced by both the sides have been duly considered and the impugned orders have been tested in the light of the final report filed in this ECIR case and the decisions cited have been carefully perused and thereupon it transpires that the impugned orders have not dealt with the aspect of gravity of the offence in question in detail. It is apparent that the impugned orders do not take note of the embargo to grant of bail, put by Section 45(1) of the PML ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th respondent- Gagan Dhawan. During the course of hearing, it was not disputed by learned CGSC for petitioner that co-accused of respondents-accused persons are already on bail. It has not been shown to this court that the case of respondents-accused persons herein is on higher footing than the case of co-accused, who have been already granted bail. Although during the course of hearing, it was asserted on behalf of respondents-accused persons that the case of respondents-accused persons is on better footing than that of co-accused but this aspect is not required to be commented upon, as this Court finds that the gravity of offence alleged against respondents-accused persons is not of such magnitude to justify denial of bail to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
