TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... true that the debenture was advertised in 2001-2002 and this accused petitioner was a field Officer appointed by the Chairman Gautam Kundu of the company who is the key person in planning of such chit fund companies to the public at large but the accused petitioner was indicated as a Debenture Trustee of the accused company no. 1 obviously because of his expertise and designed in mobilisation the public at large to procure more and more money befooling the common public on the assurance of giving high return. This Court does not find any ground to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail on the ground of his medical treatment because Enforcement Directorate is ready to meet all expenditure on account of medical treatment through Super Speciality Hospitals in West Bengal which can be availed through the Superintendent Presidency Correctional Home - the application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected. - CRM 9200 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2020 - The Hon ble Justice Shivakant Prasad For the Petitioner : Mr. Debasish Mulick ChowdhuryMr. Satadru Lahiri For the E. D. : Mr. Uttam Basak ORDER Petitioner s prayer for bail in connection with ML Case No. 03 of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that the petitioner has not received necessary medical assistance as well as treatment as it was not possible to provide necessary logistic supports or the police escort for moving him to the hospitals. It is submitted that the learned Special Judge while rejecting the bail prayer of the accused petitioner gave undue stress to the cryptic representations of the facts levelling allegations by the prosecution. The learned Judge ought to have considered the prayer for bail of the petitioner on legal ground as provided in the proviso clause of Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It is also pointed out that there are nine accused persons in connection with the case as per the petition of complaints and accused persons, namely, Amit Banerjee @ Raja, Sudhir Shaw and B.K. Mallick are already on bail and so far as the involvement and designation of the said three persons are concerned, they are alleged to be Secretary of Rose Valley Field Employee Union, A.G.M. Accounts of Rose Valley Group of Companies and Ex-Company Secretary/present advisor of Rose Valley Real Estates Constructions Limited respectively. The petitioner although represented to be as one of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of Delhi wherein in para 17 it has been observed that the maximum punishment which can be awarded after trial to the petitioner would be imprisonment for a period of 7 years out of which more than 1 year has already elapsed for the petitioner being in custody and no charge could be framed for the purported reason that the respondent claims that their investigation is in progress. It is true that hon ble Apex Court in a decision in Nikesh Tara Chand Shah Vs. Union of India reported in 2018 (11) SCC 1 has done away with the twin conditions which were imposed of under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, declaring them unconstitutional which I have already dealt with in my earlier order while rejecting the prayer of the accused petitioner. It has been observed in the cited decision in para 22 and 23 thus- 22. By the Amendment Act of 2012, which is Act 2 of 2013, a very important amendment was made to the Schedule by which the entire Part B offences were transplanted into Part A. The object for this amendment, as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amendment in clause 3 (j), specifically provided: (j) putting all the offences lis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ada on 27.11.2018. The accused-petitioner filed another application for bail on 10.4.2019 on the ground of his health and Gautam Kundu filed application for bail under Section 436A of Cr.P.C. On 11.9.2019 the Advocate for the accused Gautam Kundu raised one question regarding inquiry about accused Ramlal Goswami. For the reason of various steps time to be taken by the accused persons the learned trial Court could not frame the charge against the accused persons. The present case is now posted for framing of the charge on 27.11.2019. It is also reported that SEBI had filed a complaint case being C 14214 of 2013 on 26.04.2013 and after a lapse of about 6 years the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 25.02.2019 in compliance with the order of the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in connection with Criminal Revision being no. 227 of 2017 has been pleased to transfer the case with the learned Court and the trial Court received the record on 14.03.2019 and after receiving the record this learned Court has directed the complainant SEBI to take fresh steps upon the accused persons so that the procedure of summons can be maintained in accordance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018 (13 of 2018) which is evident from Annexure R-1. It is also argued that nowhere from the records it was revealed that the Presidency Correctional Home is not providing the best treatment to the petitioner and my attention is invited to the medical report of the senior Medical Officer Presidency Correctional Home dated 22.03.2011 which shows that the petitioner was admitted in PCH Hospital and SSKM hospital. The petitioner was suffering from cardiac problem and he was referred to OPD at SSKM Hospital for check-up on 09.11.2016 and he was advised for ECG Echocardiography and his ECG report dated 15.01.2016 indicates left atrial enlargement with RBBB. He was referred to Physical Medicine Dept. of SSKM Hospital and he attended physical medicine OPD of SSKM Hospital on 16.12.16, 02.01.2017, 05.01.2017, 06.01.2017, 10.01.2017, 14.01.2017, 14.02.2017. MRI-LS Spine study reveals degenerative disc disease with secondary spinal canal stenosis at L4-L5. Thus, I find that this medical report was prior to the date of the order of rejection of bail passed by this Court in CRM 2033 of 2018 vide judgment dated 28.09.2018. The statement of the accused petitioner dated 24.03.2015 on bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
