TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner with Pooja Kumari, daughter of Binay Yadav and Srimati Devi, the petitioner and his family acquired many buses, vehicles and immovable property. The petitioner also made attempt to file income tax return of the year 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 to legalize the proceeds of crime as his income but the facts show that petitioner got money from his mother-in-law either through his wife or through different persons in acquiring movable and immovable properties. The petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail - Application dismissed. - CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84989 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2020 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur For the Opposite Party : Mr. Dr. K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Prem Kumar had no independent source of income prior to his marriage. He filed false income tax returns of assessment year 2016-17, 2017-18 only with a view to show the properties acquired in his name through valid means. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. There is no tangible evidence on record to show that petitioner, his wife, his father acquired any property out of proceeds of crime of his father-in-law, Binay Yadav. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. The petitioner was married on 19.06.2014 with Pooja Kumari, daughter of Srimati Devi and Binay Yadav. The petitioner never met his father-in-law. The petitioner has got ancestral property of about 12 B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... started filing income tax return from the year 2016-17, 2017- 18 and 2018-19. The return was accepted by the income tax department. It is submitted that petitioner and his family members had no concern with Binay Yadav and they did not receive any farthing from the proceeds of crime of Binay Yadav. It is further submitted that complainant has wrongly stated that petitioner got ₹ 7,50,000/- and ₹ 2 lacs in his bank account on different dates in the name of Pooja Kumari and Punam Kumari from Srimati Devi and the amount was withdrawn for purchasing the vehicles. Srimati Devi deposited the amount out of her Stridhan. It is also wrongly stated that on the order of Srimati Devi, Dhananjay Kumar deposited ₹ 1,50,000/- and Upendra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Pooja Kumari in her statement u/s 50 of PMLA stated that immovable property, in her name and in the name of her sister, Poonam Kumari, were acquired and the cash deposit in her account has been made by her mother, Srimati Devi. She also admitted that she had no source of income and this fact itself shows that Srimati Devi acquired immovable property and deposited cash in the name of her daughter out of proceeds of crime acquired by Binay Yadav. The petitioner was married with Pooja Kumari, daughter of Binay Yadav, and after marriage the petitioner acquired six vehicles valued at ₹ 46,21,449/- and two plots of land valued at ₹ 80 lacs. Prior to the year 2014, the total cash deposits in the bank account of Prem Kumar and Sarju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng cash deposits in the said bank account. Prem Kumar and his father did not offer any explanation to such deposits made in their accounts. Sarju Yadav disclosed the names of Umakant Singh and Ravikant Singh who transferred funds through their bank accounts to the seller of JCB after giving them equivalent amount in cash and this fact itself shows the payment of cash out of proceeds of crime in the account of Umakant Singh and Ravikant Singh by the petitioner and his father. The petitioner avoided appearance after issuance of summons. It is further submitted that it is well settled law that if the proceeds of crime is found in possession of any person it was he who has to explain the source of such income. The petitioner has not given any s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
