TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, the alleged offence is nothing but an economic offence which obstructs the development of the State and the Country. The petitioner is not entitled for any anticipatory bail from this Court - Criminal petition dismissed. - CRIMINAL PETITION No.1612 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2021 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN PETITIONER (BY SRI K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI KEMPEGOWDA, ADVOCATE) RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP FOR R.1 2) ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in ECIR/01/HIU/2019 registered by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi ( ED for short), respondent No.2 herein. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the Haryana Police at Bajghera registered an FIR in Crime No.291/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 ( HDRUA Act for short) and Section 420 of IPC as against accused persons including M/s. Sobha Developers Limited ( M/s. SDL for short). The petitioner herein is the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case registered by the Haryana Police for the offence under Section 10 of the HDRUA Act and he was released on bail along with other accused. Therefore, he approached this Court for anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. Absolutely, there is no material placed on record to show that the petitioner has cheated and caused loss to the State of Haryana. Even in the charge-sheet filed by the Haryana Police, it has been categorically stated that there is no loss caused to the Haryana Development Authority and absolutely there is no material to show that this petitioner is involved in the commission of offence and no offence has been made out in the case registered by respondent No.2-ED and it is not mentioned as to whether the petitioner is responsible for the company affairs of the M/s. SDL. The terms of the agreement has not at all been violated by the petitioner. Even if the terms of the agreement held between Chintels Group and M/s. SDL is violated, it is covered under Section 10 of the HDRUA Act, in which he has already obtained bail. The respondent No.2-ED intervened and register ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of Karnataka gets jurisdiction for the offences committed at Karnataka and not for the offences committed outside the jurisdiction of Karnataka. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition. 6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties on both sides and perused the records. 7. On perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana said to have entered into an agreement with Chintels Group for developing the land measuring 166.415 acres and as per the agreement, 20% of the land should be developed for the people belonging to economically weaker section, 25% should be developed for the purpose of NPNL Scheme and remaining 55% should be sold in the market by restricting the maximum profit upto 15%. It is also not in dispute that Chintels Group said to have entered into an agreement with M/s. SDL, where the petitioner is the Vice Chairman and Managing Director to develop the land and accordingly, the licenses were issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning, Haryana for the residential plots belonging to Chintels Group. A bilateral agreement was entered into between Chintels Group and the Director of Town and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court and not at Karnataka. In order to invoke the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail, there is a bar under Section 177 of Cr.P.C. where the local Court has power to try the offence and as per Section 2(e) of Cr.P.C. the High Court pertaining to Karnataka State and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable and in support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of this Court as well as Delhi High Court. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.3958/2017 dated 25.05.2017 has considered regarding granting of anticipatory bail in respect of the offences committed other than the State of Karnataka and granted anticipatory bail where the offence was committed and the case was registered at Mumbai. This Court, at paragraph-3 of the order, has held as under: 3. Regarding the maintainability of the petition before this Court, learned counsel has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Dr.L.R.NAIDU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 1984 CRI.L.J. 757 and the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elief to the person apprehending arrest . The Court may not have jurisdiction to deal with the offence. But as observed in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab anticipatory bail order becomes effective at the very moment of arrest i.e. the place where the Police or the other authority proposing to arrest the person lay their hands on him. As further observed in that case the direction under S. 438 is intended to confer conditional immunity from this touch or confinement . 8. The question is, cannot a person thus pursued by the Police of another State seek anticipatory bail under S. 438 in the High Court or the Court of Session within whose jurisdiction he resides ? The judgment of this Court goes to show that Section 438 of Cr.P.C. empowers granting of anticipatory bail when a person of accusation has committed a non-bailable offence and reason to believe that he will be arrested; if the Investigating Officer arrests, he shall be released on bail. It never says, either outside Police or local Police shall arrest the accused person who committed the non-bailable offence. 12. Learned Special Counsel relied upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anting any transit anticipatory bail, but he is entitled for regular anticipatory bail. I am of the view that granting transit anticipatory bail is also nothing but granting regular anticipatory bail. Once the Police have arrested and released on bail, nothing remains again to take action for taking into custody and the accused can approach the Trial Court for regular bail once he is arrested and released by the Police, it is not to be said that the accused shall not be arrested when he is traveling to the jurisdictional place where the offence was committed and he can be arrested anywhere either within the jurisdiction or outside and nothing remains for again arresting the petitioner once arrested and released on anticipatory bail for a non-bailable offence. Therefore, the contention of learned Special Counsel for respondent No.2-ED cannot be acceptable that no transit or anticipatory bail can be granted by this Court as jurisdiction holds no water. Therefore, I hold that anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable and this Court has power to grant transit anticipatory bail. 14. On perusal of the allegation made against the petitioner goes to show that, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as under; 78. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 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. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain (1998) 2 SCC 105, it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. 79. The learned Solicitor General submitted that the Scheduled offence and offence of money laundering are independent of each other and PMLA being a special enactment applicable to the offence of money laundering is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Solicitor General submitted that money laundering being an economic offence committed with much planning and deliberate design poses a serious threat to the nation s economy and financial integrity and in order to unearth the laundering and trail of money, custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary. 80. Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Judge granting anticipatory bail. 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. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 15. In view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the alleged offence though non-bailable, the same is punishable with 7 years of imprisonment and even under PML Act, the punishment is 7 years, but the alleged offences committed amounts to cheating and fraudulent transaction from initial stage. They planned and prepared documents dealing with sale and M/s. SDL acted as seller and buyer of the properties and almost more than ₹ 200 Crores of fake transactions said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
