TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, was constituted under the Chairmanship of the petitioner. The two contracts to M/s Suryamukhi Projects Pvt Ltd. and M/s AMR Constructions Pvt Ltd. were awarded during the petitioner s tenure in ILRL. In fact, the petitioner was the Managing Director of ITNL when all the 10 alleged bogus contracts were awarded. The petitioner s knowledge and involvement in the alleged awarding of contracts cannot be ruled out. The investigation qua the petitioner as well as the real beneficiaries of the siphoned off amount is still pending. Apparently, the money that is alleged to be siphoned off is public money and the offence is grave in nature. Indeed, the Investigating Officer has interrogated the petitioner twice, however looking at the gravity of the offence and the aspect of pending investigation relating to finding out the real beneficiaries of the siphoned off money, this Court finds itself in disagreement with the submission that no more interrogation in custody is required. This Court cannot overlook the submission made on behalf of the State that the petitioner had occupied the highest office and as such, the risk of his tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tity. He was, in particular, apprised of the Gurgaon Metro Project which was promoted by ITNL through Enso Rail Systems Ltd. , later came to be known as IL FS Rail Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ILRL). 5. On such representation, the complainant agreed to invest. He was advised by Ravi Parthasarthy, Hari Sankaran and Sanjiv Krishan Rai @ Sanjiv Rai to invest in ILRL by purchasing shares of EIPL, which was a shareholder in ILRL. Resultantly, the complainant purchased shares of EIPL worth ₹ 90,35,43,780/-. By 10.03.2014, the complainant made further investment and was having shares worth ₹ 99,72,93,680/-. 6. In September, 2014, the complainant met Ravi Parthasarthy, Hari Sankaran, Ramesh C. Bawa, K. Ramchand and Mukund Gajanan Sapre. Again, from October, 2014 to March, 2015, the complainant met the representatives of ITNL namely, Krishna Ghag and Mukund Gajanan Sapre. In these meetings, the shares of ITNL were offered to him and in this regard, an agreement was also executed on 23.03.2015. Thus, by March 2015, the complainant had invested a total of ₹ 170 crores in ILRL by: i) purchasing shares of EIPL ii) purchasing fresh shares during fresh all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anaging Director of ILRL. Reference was also made to the show cause notice dated 15.11.2018 issued by the Income Tax authorities to contend that the complainant himself is of dubious character. iii) The complainant had agreed that R.L. Kabra would continue as a Director in ILRL on behalf of EIPL. C) The allegations of awarding bogus contracts by ILRL to the 10 companies from 2010 onwards involving an amount of approx. ₹ 94 crores, are unsubstantiated because: i) The contracts were approved by a Committee of Directors , which comprised of R.L. Kabra, Mukund Gajanan Sapre and Sanjiv Krishan Rai. Further, the award of contracts did not have the approval of the Board. ii) During petitioner s tenure as the Director of ILRL, only two contracts were awarded by the Committee of Directors to M/s Suryamukhi Projects Pvt. Ltd. and M/s AMR Constructions Pvt. Ltd. So far as the bills of M/s AMR Construction Pvt. Ltd. are concerned, the same were approved by Sanjiv Krishan Rai and were not approved by the Board of Directors. The payments were not endorsed by the petitioner but by Sanjiv Krishan Rai and Paritam Kumar. iii) The payments to the abovesaid two compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking over the EIPL, he was deliberately not allowed to become a Director. The petitioner conspired with other co-accused persons to defraud not only the complainant but the other shareholders of ILRL as well. 11. The bogus contracts were awarded during the petitioner s tenure. Even if only two contracts were awarded during his tenure as a Director of the ILRL, but all the 10 contracts, worth approx. ₹ 94 crores, were awarded while he was the Managing Director of the ITNL. During investigation, the statements of officers of ILRL namely, Hukum Singh Chaudhary and Bindeshwar Prasad, who were in-charge of the site, were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which they stated that they had never heard of those 10 companies, to whom work was awarded and no work was executed by any of the companies. On inspecting the work orders, which related to clearance of land, no details of the affected shopkeepers or the description of the encroachment were found. The work contracts were awarded without signing any contract or taking any performance guarantee. Further, the work was awarded without inviting any tender. 12. It was also submitted that the contracts to Sanjiv Krishan Rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (d) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (g) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution, because over implication in the cases is a matter of common kn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt, which is approached with an application under Section 438, depending on the seriousness of the threat (of arrest) to issue notice to the Public Prosecutor and obtain facts, even while granting limited interim anticipatory bail. 92.3. Nothing in Section 438 CrPC, compels or obliges courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of statement of any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc. While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc. The courts would be justified - and ought to impose conditions spelt out in Section 437(3) CrPC [by virtue of Section 438(2)]. The need to impose other restrictive conditions, would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the State or the investigating agency. Such special or other restrictive conditions may be imposed if the case or cases wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Suryamukhi Projects Pvt. Ltd. 18,988,554 21.7.2010 18.05.2011 180,173 18,808,381 3. AMR Constructions Ltd. 85,650,701 06.09.2010 09.05.2011 2,046,199 83,604,502 4. NKG Infrastructure Ltd. 130,566,480 03.09.2011 20.12.2011 3,916,994 126,649,486 5. NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd. 109,450,652 30.04.2013 30.05.2013 7,280,446 102,170,206 6. Ethical Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 23,000,000 30.05.2013 30.05.2013 1,656,000 21,344,000 7. Prathyusha Resources Infra Pvt. Ltd. 58000,000 30.05.2013 30.05.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... six days before his retirement. xii) The Investigating Officer could interrogate the petitioner only twice i.e., on 20.02.2020 and 21.02.2020 at Arthur Jail, Mumbai during which the petitioner is stated to have not cooperated. Thereafter, on account of COVID-19 pandemic, further investigation could not be done. xiii) The Investigating Officer has pressed for custodial interrogation to find out the end user/beneficiary of the siphoned off public money of ₹ 94 crores. xiv) The complaint itself was filed on 06.08.2018 resulting in registration of the FIR on 06.12.2018. The petitioner was made to resign from his position as Managing Director in October, 2018. xv) The present is not a simpliciter case of commercial transaction gone bad between two individuals but of siphoning off the public money. xvi) The petitioner s regular bail application in the ECIR case has been rejected by the Bombay High Court on 29.10.2020. xvii) The co-accused R.L. Kabra was released on regular bail after considering his medical condition. Mukund Sapre was also released on regular bail after spending considerable time in custody. 20. The entire community is aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Procedure being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society . *** 83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the Accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the Accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court . 23. The alleged acts were committed when the petitioner was assuming office as a Director of ILRL and also as the Managing Director of ITNL. The Committee of Directors , which awarded the contracts, was constituted under the Chairmanship of the petitioner. The two contracts to M/s Suryamukhi Projects Pvt Ltd. and M/s AMR Constructions Pvt Ltd. were awarded during the petitioner s tenure in ILRL. In fact, the petitioner was the Managing Director of ITNL when all the 10 alleged bogus contracts were awarded. The petitioner s knowledge and involvement in the alleged awarding of contracts cannot be ruled out. The investigation qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
