TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses and there is no material on record to show that if released on bail, he would tamper with the evidence or subvert the course of justice. As per the record, moveable and immovable properties have already been attached, the statement of the witness have also been recorded. The FIR was registered way back in 2014 and there is nothing to show that the petitioner tried to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. The petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court, subject to the condition that he shall not leave the country without permission of the Special Court, the passport if already not deposited, shall be deposited with the Special Court, he shall join the investigation as and when required by the prosecuting agency and he shall not tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses in any manner - Bail application allowed. - BAIL APPLN. 3791/2020 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR Petitioner Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Advocate. Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l export; M/s Bush Foods is unique opportunity for strategic partnership with single owner as opposed to other Basmati Rice players in India. M/s Bush Foods had appointed Deloitte Haskins as Sales Statutory Auditor. M/s Bush Foods has atleast 12 months of stock of rice at one time in order to ensure continuity of supply of branded product. It has inventory of ₹ 895.50 Crore. Further secured loans of the company were to the tune of ₹ 539.30 Crore out of which approximately 96% constituted net working capital facility loan for packing credit including foreign country loans. The average net working capital of M/s Bush Foods has increased as compared to previous financial year etc. Copies of information, memorandum and data as on September, 2012 prepared by M/s KPMG and it was furnished to the complainant company. Vendor due diligence report dated 31.10.2013 prepared by Price Water House Cooper Pvt. Ltd. at request of M/s Bush Foods was also submitted which by and large matched with statement and data books. Based on the information, the complainant company invested aggregate amount of USD 120354783 (approx. ₹ 750 Crores). In this manner the complainant company purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rice to the consortium bank. The Complainant has been informed that current outstanding amount under credit facility was over 714 crore which exceeds sanctioned amount of ₹ 700 crore. 6. In this manner, the company had also taken various loan facilities from various banks prior to the contract with complainant company. On the basis of report of actual inventory appears to be less than 5% of the inventory represented to complainant company shown in the books of account of company upto October, 2013. The books of account, financial statement of M/s Bush Foods has been manipulated and falsify by officers and employees of company and represented incorrect level of stock/inventory to induce the complainant to invest in M/s Bush Foods. Inter-alia, on the basis of said complaint, the aforesaid FIR was registered. Then on 26.02.2019, The Directorate of Enforcement has recorded ECIR and started investigation. 7. As per ED the role of the present petitioner/accused is that he was employee of M/s Hassad Netherland, BV collided with Virkaran Avasthi to cheat M/s Hassad Netherland. He joined M/s Hassad in September, 2009 and was responsible for Hassad's Agri-business, investmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the PMLA cannot be read as inculpatory evidence against the petitioner as the same is inadmissible in evidence being violation of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India and in any case what value is to be attached to these statements is a matter of trial. It is further submitted that as per the complaint of the prosecution the entire matter pertains to the offence committed by Veer Karan Awasthi, Ritika Awasthi, Vinod Sirohi, Rahul Rai Surana and Namit Arora, however, none of them have been arrested and investigated by the respondent and the prosecuting agency have been discriminatory against the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no evidence that the petitioner was in connivance with personnels belonging to organization like Q Invest, Ambit Corporate Finance Pvt. Ltd., Manish P. Jain Associates, SSPA Co. Chartered Accountants, GM Kapadia and Company, KPMG and Price Water House Coopers, the companies which did prior due diligence for and on behalf of M/s Hassad Foods before the said companies purchased the share holdings in Bush Foods Ltd. It is further submitted that the respondent has already attached and frozen the movable and immovable properties of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the distributors were genuine and carried out amendments in a distributor survey. It is further submitted that the petitioner leaked information of Hassad Netherlands and he was not suppose to share confidential information with Virkaran Awasthi and Vinod Sirohi. He leaked confidential internal communications to the Directors/officials of M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Ltd. And the communications so leaked contained sensitive information relating to the transaction. 15. It is further submitted that the petitioner being an employee of the complainant company was aware of the ground realities and despite that he induced the complainant to invest ₹ 750 Crores in M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Ltd. by purchasing its 69.5% shares. It is submitted that the petitioner received kickback of about ₹ 20 cores, out of which 7 crores have been identified. It is further submitted that the petitioners owns a company by the name of M/s Harin Ventures Ltd in Dubai and a sum of around ₹ 13 Crores were transferred from the account of Virkaran Awasthi. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and the petitioner has not co-operated in the investigation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same are neither revived nor resurrected by the Amending Act therefore, as of today there is no rigor of said two conditions under original Section 45(l)(ii) of the PML Act for releasing the Petitioner on bail. The provisions of section 439 of Cr.P.C and the conditions therein will only apply in the case of the Petitioner for grant of bail. 19. At the stage of granting bail, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case should be avoided, so that no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. ( Niranjan Singh and another V. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others (1980) 2 SCC 559.) 20. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:- (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 23. The petitioner in the instant case is in custody since 27.10.2020. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the petitioner is a flight risk and according to the counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was granted permission to go to Sri Lanka for two weeks and thereafter he returned, the fact which has not been denied by the respondent. As far as the question of tampering is concerned, the evidence is documentary in nature and the documents and digital evidence is in the custody of the prosecuting agency. 24. As far as the question of influencing the witnesses is concerned, no material has been placed on record by the respondent to show that anyone on behalf of the petitioner had tried to influence the witness of this case in any manner whatsoever. A vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse the bail and it is not t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
