TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffence in the present case is not only in relation to the quantum of money involved but also that offences have been committed against lakhs of investors. The apprehension of the CBI that the petitioners are likely to hinder the further investigation being carried out and temper with the evidence is based on credible material as while in custody also efforts have been made to dispose of the property of the company - Considering the nature of serious allegations against the petitioners, the magnitude and severity of the offence allged impacting lakhs of investors and there being a genuine apprehension of causing obstruction in further investigation and tampering with the evidence, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners. Petition dismissed. - BAIL APPLN. 1707/2016 - - - Dated:- 6-3-2017 - Ms. Mukta Gupta, J. Represented by: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhishek Amritanshu and Mr. Amit Pawan, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, with Mr. Abhishek Amritanshu and Mr. Amit Pawan For The Petitioner. Represented by: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Spl. PP with Ms. Garima Singh Yadav, Adv. with IO Mr. Anil Rawat For The Respondent. JUDGMENT 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted by the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 2 nd May, 2016. 4. Learned Senior counsels for the petitioners as a brief background of the case submit that the company M/s Pearls General Finance Ltd. (in short 'M/s PGF') was incorporated as a public Company, limited by shares on 19 th January, 1983 which was later changed to M/s Pearls Green Forests Ltd. (in short 'M/s PGFL'). The present FIR relates to M/s Pearl Agrotech Corporation Ltd. (in short 'M/s PACL') which was initially incorporated as M/s Gurwant Agrotech Ltd. on 13th February, 1996 and changed to M/s PACL on 2nd April, 1996. In 1998, a public interest litigation was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court alleging non-compliance of relevant provisions while initiating collective investment scheme by the company. Vide order dated 7th October, 1998 the Hon'ble Supreme Court restrained the company from alienating its assets. Finally a retired Judge was appointed to go into the irregularities of the company who submitted a final report on 20 th September, 2002 stating that there was no violation committed in the collective investment schemes run by M/s PGFL and M/s PACL. The interim o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terrogation. Since all the documents and necessary material have been collected by the CBI, there are no chances of tempering with the evidence. Moreover, the petitioners were only employees of M/s PACL and had no financial control thereon. 6. It is contended that the only ground on which the CBI opposes the bail application is the gravity of offence however Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various decisions has held that gravity of offence is not the only circumstance to be considered while granting bail and has granted bail even in cases involving alleged fraud of huge amounts. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as (2012) 1 SCC 40 Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and 2017 SCC OnLine SC 96 Manoranjana Sinh @ Gupta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. In respect of allegations of the CBI that the petitioners are likely to influence the witnesses, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as (2005) 8 SCC 21 State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi wherein it has been held that bail cannot be refused on the ground that witnesses are likely to be influenced unless there is credible material wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty in Village Akbarpur purportedly sold to the investors was found to be Wakf property (Kabristan), meant for tube well, land of gram samaj and chak road. Property allegedly sold at Village Hathupura was found to be land of gram sabha and forest land. Further in majority of cases though the land was stated to be allotted to the investors however no sale deeds were executed. Thus, there was no transfer of ownership though 34% of the amount taken from the investors was for the purpose of transferring properties in their names. Though there was no sale of the land as per the Transfer of Property Act however fake entries were made in the accounts books. Though in the books of accounts amounts were being shown for development of land however the money was actually rotated in the various sisters concerns on the basis of forged invoices and in reality no land was developed. 10 intermediary companies were created for transfer of land from M/s PGFL to M/s PACL namely Silverline Associates Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, Maurya Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, Panghat Properties Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, Lakhpati Properties Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, Sunbright Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Mohali, Spacecity Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Moh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money of the investors was invested in real estate in Australia by forming joint ventures. 9. As per the status report filed by CBI, during the course of investigation, role of Gurmeet Singh, petitioner No.1 who was the Executive Director-Finance of M/s PACL since 1st February, 2009 was revealed as under- i. He is a qualified Chartered Accountant and joined PACL as AGM (Finance) in mid 2004. In February, 2009, he became Executive Director(Finance) of PACL, before that he was heading PACL accounts department as GM (Finance). ii. While he was director, PACL had collected investment/ funds from crores of gullible investors/customers in the name of sale of undeveloped agriculture plot and carrying out development activities on the same. However the land allotted to the customers was nonexistent/Govt. land/not owned by the Company. Now most of the customers of PACL verified by CBI, have neither got the plot nor received the payment due. iii. While he was director, number of sham transaction purportedly showing sale, purchase and allotment of land to investors have been done. One of such instance of such sham transaction pertains to Kh. No.314 99 of Akbarpur, Meerut (UP) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same 12 forged valuable property documents were seized by CBI from PACL. vii. Being director of PACL, he has chaired some of the board meeting and signed the minutes of board meetings, running illegal scheme, cheating customers. He played significant role in decision making, policy decisions and day-to-day running of the affairs of company, while sitting in the Board of Directors of PACL. viii. As director he was also responsible for issuance of circulars, inducing its commission agents by giving them incentives, Prizes such as Foreign trips, for collecting more and more funds from the gullible investors. ix. In criminal conspiracy with other co-accused, being Executive Director (Finance), he played significant role in the board meetings for grant of approval of diversion of investor's money to Australia through associate company M/s PIPL. It is mentioned in the Board meeting that the company will invest ₹150 cr. in PIPL to explore business avenues in the overseas market. x. Being ED (Finance), he is also authorized signatories in the bank accounts of PACL. xi. There is significant oral documentary evidence against the petitioner accused to substantiate his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instead of Board of Directors meeting which took place in the same day (10.06.2010) and the same was chaired by S. Bhattacharya. Both meetings dated 10.06.2010 were attended by only two directors i.e. S. Bhattacharya and Gurmeet Singh and in both meetings S. Bhattacharya acted as chairman of the meetings. v. In criminal conspiracy with other c-accused, being director, he played significant role in the board meetings for the approval of diversion of customer's money to Australia through associate company M/s PIPL. It is mentioned in the minutes of Board meeting that the company will invest ₹150 cr. In PIPL to explore business avenues in the overseas market. vi. While he was director, PACL was having possession of forged GPA, ATS, Will, possession letters etc. pertaining to the nonexistent / Govt. land of village Kot Padora of Bhind (MP) and the company had used the same documents as genuine and shown the allotment of same land to its thousands of gullible customers. The same 12 forged valuable property documents were seized by CBI from PACL. vii. Detailed role has been mentioned in the charge sheet and there is enough oral and documentary evidence against the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation and a fair trial, the Court will not decline to grant bail to a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is also clear that when an accused is brought before the Court of a Magistrate with the allegation against him of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he has ordinarily no option in the matter but to refuse bail subject, however, to the first proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC and in a case where the Magistrate entertains a reasonable belief on the materials that the accused has not been guilty of such an offence. This will, however, be an extraordinary occasion since there will be some materials at the stage of initial arrest, for the accusation or for strong suspicion of commission by the person of such an offence. 23. xx xx xx xx xx 24. Section 439(1) CrPC of the new Code, on the other hand, confers special powers on the High Court or the Court of Session in respect of bail. Unlike under Section 437(1) there is no ban imposed under Section 439(1), CrPC against granting of bail by the High Court or the Court of Session to persons accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
