TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the instant case would have also to be considered and thus, it cannot be contended that the embargo of Section 212(6) would essentially operate in the instant case - In the instant case, there are no contentions raised on behalf of the SFIO that the applicant s presence cannot be secured or that the applicant would flee from justice or that the applicant can influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner. The applicant in the circumstances is allowed to be released on bail on filing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge - application disposed off. - BAIL APPL. No.1706/2019 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2019 - MS. ANU MALHOTRA J. Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Advocate. JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J. 1. The applicant Sachin Jain who is in custody since 20.05.2019 is arrayed as accused No.28 in the complaint filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (hereinafter referred to as SFIO) which complaint was filed on 18.09.2017 by the SF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal report in criminal complaint and is applicable only during the course of investigation. The petitioner further submits that Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 has come into force only on 01.03.2014 and thus, does not apply to the petitioner who in any event is a stranger to all those four companies i.e. M/s Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited, M/s Subhiksha Securities Consultants Private Limited, M/s Shadilal Marketing Private Limited and M/s Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited wherein he was shown as a Director. The petitioner further submits that though the prosecution has relied on the Memorandum of Association, Resolution, Resignation Letters and share certificates of the four companies i.e. M/s Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited, M/s Subhiksha Securities Consultants Private Limited, M/s Shadilal Marketing Private Limited and M/s Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited as having been signed by the petitioner, the petitioner has never signed nor executed any of the said documents and submitted that the same are forged and fabricated bearing his forged signatures. The petitioner submits that there is no document that has been filed by the SFIO to show that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r had:- Amassed disproportionate assets; Incorporated a number of sham companies under the Companies Act, 1956, many of which have dummy directors or fictitious shareholders. Acquired lands buildings in the names of these companies, using laundered money earned from illegal mining through contracts taken in the names of Companies/partnership firms owned by his family members. , and thus, the respondents to that petition through the learned ASG were called upon to inquire into the matter to find out that whether it was a fit case to initiate any inquiry with it having been observed to the effect that the proceedings in W.P.(C) No.818/2015, would not act as an impediment for any legal action being taken against such persons. 7. Vide order dated 08.01.2016, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in compliance of order dated 14.12.2015 of the Hon ble Supreme Court ordered the SFIO to investigate into the affairs of six companies allegedly owned by Md. Iqbal. Vide order dated 07.06.2019 vide which the second bail application of the applicant was declined by the Trial Court, it was observed vide paragraphs 5 6 to the effect:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciates had committed a fraud as defined under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 with the ultimate objective of camouflaging ill-gotten money and of amassing real estate properties whilst violating various provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies Act, 1956 and had further committed offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and had caused a loss of ₹ 610 crores approximately to the exchequer. The SFIO further submits that the investigation had revealed that the entire network of EUIs i.e. the Entities Under Investigation had been created with a single objective of creating/acquiring legal assets out of the wealth amassed through illicit sand mining activities and that to achieve this goal, Md.Iqbal group (accused no.1 to 9) created/used a complex grid of EUIs to camouflage the source of funds and fictitious assets acquired through accommodation entry operators were liquidated to create real assets. The status report of the SFIO further states that a set of dummy/ ghost shareholders and Directors were used as a front to facilitate the liquidation and acquisition of assets and that the group had indulged in large scale falsification of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stries Private Limited, Net Agrofoods Private Limited, V.K. Health Solutions Private Limited to acquire shareholding in 47 other accused companies, which were then used to acquire huge parcels of land in the State of U.P. to circumvent the land ceiling laws in the State and in this manner, they first used their unaccounted money and high net worth of the accused companies to acquire the said 47 companies and then purchased huge land in the name of the said 47 companies and that the acquisition of 47 companies and purchasing of parcels of land took place from the period 2009-2014 and that the investigation revealed that the group acquired the said four companies as under:- Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited- 20.1.11 Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited- 25.9.10 Shadilal Marketing Private Limited- 31.3.11 Subhiksha Securities Consultants Private Limited- 20.9.11 and that the applicant was a Director in four of the aforesaid accused companies i.e. from 2010 to 13.08.2013 i.e. Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited, Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited, Shadilal Marketing Private Limited Subhiksha Securities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lsification of the books of accounts. 13. Reliance was placed on behalf of the SFIO on the verdict of this Court in Amit Ranjan Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9104 to contend to the effect that the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 were in pari materia to the provisions of Section 212(6) and Section 212(7) of the Companies Act, 2013. 14. Section 212(6) and Section 212(7) of the Companies Act, 2013 read to the effect:- 212. Investigation into affairs of Company by Serious Fraud Investigation Office. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 1 [offence covered under section 447] of this Act shall be cognizable and no person accused of any offence under those sections shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le on bail. 17. The SFIO further submits that as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2013 (7) SCC 439 , economic offences constituted a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail and that the economic offences have deep rooted conspiracies and involved huge loss of public funds and thus, needed to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country, in as much as, they tend to seriously prejudice/ destroy the economy of a country and thus, caused immense irreversible damage to the larger public interest. 18. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the SFIO on the verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Rohit Tandon Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46 to contend to similar effect. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the SFIO on the verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat V. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364 wherein, it was observed vide para 5 to the effect:- 5. The entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Mohammad Iqbal and others, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., and Sections 211, 297, 299, 301, 678, 629-A of the Companies Act, 1956 and Sections 129, 184, 188, 189, 447 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, pending in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3 and Special Judge, (Companis Act), Dwarka, District Court/ Delhi and quashing of the summoning order dated 24.01.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3 and Special Judge, (Companies Act), Dwarka, District Court/ Delhi. At the very outset, objection has been raised by learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 regarding maintainability of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court, however, he conceded that in this case, point of maintainability has been considered exhaustively and decide by this Court in Application U/S 482 No.-18806 of 2019 Mohammad Wajid and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and another, on 10.05.2019, copy whereof has been brought vide annexure no.6 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties Consultants Private Limited, Add:25, Chauhan Market, Samaspur Jagir, Delhi-110091. (iv) Director/Managing Director of Shadilal Marketing Private Limited, Add: 59/5, Emco Complex, Vijay Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. (v) Director/Managing Director of Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited, Add: 59/5, Emco Complex, Vijay Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. 22. Inter alia it was sought to be submitted through the said complaint of the petitioner that he works as a salesman in a shoe shop company and that unfortunately on 13.02.2019, a notice was issued by the Court at Dwarka in his name and on his appearing before the Court, he was taken into custody by the Court whilst apprising him that he was a Director of M/s Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited, M/s Subhiksha Securities Consultants Private Limited, M/s Shadilal Marketing Private Limited M/s Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited and that the said companies had committed a serious fraud and had caused loss to the State. The petitioner submits that he was also supplied the complete set of the charge sheet along with a pen drive and that after going through the same, he was shocked to see th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ummary of the evidence on which it was based. The response of the respondent is on the record which has been adverted to elsewhere hereinabove, however, the specific evidence collected against the petitioner is not spelt out. Undoubtedly, the respondent alleges that in apparent reference to the group of Mohd. Iqbal, the stated king pin and his key associates and family members in furtherance of a larger conspiracy induced the accused companies i.e. Mastiff Industries Private Limited, Net Agrofoods Private Limited, V.K.Health Solutions Private Limited to acquire shareholding in 47 other accused companies which were then used to acquire huge parcels of land in the State of UP to circumvent the land ceiling laws in the State and that as per the investigation conducted, the petitioner was a Director in four of them from 2010 to 13.08.2013 as adverted to hereinabove and that the petitioner continued to remain the Director in Sanchit Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. till 13.08.2013 even after its acquisition by the Group, as a consequence of which the petitioner is stated to have been a participatory to a conspiracy hatched by the Group as being a Director in the said companies and thus committed fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was a Director of four companies i.e. i.e. M/s Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited, M/s Subhiksha Securities Consultants Private Limited, M/s Shadilal Marketing Private Limited and M/s Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited, the contention of the petitioner is that his proof of identity has been illegally and unauthorizedly used by Sanat Kumar Jain A-87 whom he met for getting a job. 29. It is essential to observe that the documents that the petitioner has submitted during the course of the present proceedings are copies of an account opening form submitted to the Punjab National Bank, Laxmi Nagar Branch, Delhi by Sarika Jain, his wife and by himself purportedly giving the same address 73, J-Extension, Murtiwali Gali, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, which is the address mentioned as J-Extension, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 in the summons issued by the SFIO dated 16.08.2016 to the petitioner apprising him to appear before the SFIO on 15.09.2016 for examination in connection with the investigation into the affairs of M/s AMB Buildgroup Private Limited and Others and Aarzoo Agritech Private Limited others under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act which is also shown to be the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceed on the basis of material produces with the charge sheet for dealing with the issue of charge but if the Court is satisfied that there is material of sterling quality which has been withheld by the investigator/prosecutor, the Court is not debarred from summoning or relying upon the same even if such document is not a part of the charge sheet. It does not mean that the defence has a right to invoke Section 91 Code of Criminal Procedure de hors the satisfaction of the Court, at the stage of charge. , coupled with the factum that there is no document placed on the record by the SFIO to show any direct benefit having been received by the petitioner herein by the alleged fraud in any mode, without any observations on the merits or demerits of the aspect of framing of charges or otherwise and the trial, if any, in the circumstances, in as much as, it has been laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2019 (14) SCALE 157 that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same, in as much as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity to secu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
