TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... US DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [ 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT] , which was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent authorities, was rejected on merits of the allegations and other materials and hence, the facts and circumstances of that case are entirely different from the facts of the present case. Since the petitioner has been regularly attending before the respondent authorities as and when called for and cooperating with the investigation by furnishing required information; the main accused have already been arrested and their custodial interrogation has already been done by the respondent authorities; major part of the investigation has already been completed and the properties worth ₹ 4109.13 Crores have already been attached, the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not required. In such circumstances, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain conditions is justifiable. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad, within a period of fifteen days from today, and on such surrender, he shall be released on bail on -his executing a personal bond to the tune ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either the actual market value of the land or its location or its boundaries or survey numbers or the permissions required to be obtained for the layout from the concerned authorities. All the depositors, who paid money to Agri Gold Group of Companies, are in the form of deposits only. The Agri Gold Group of Companies did not obtain permission from RBI to collect such deposits. SEBI has also stated that Agri Gold Group of Companies carried out the business in the form of Collective Investments Schemes (CIS). The Group has collected monies from depositors by promising them to pay double the amounts or allotment of a plot to the depositor, but the Agri Gold Group Companies represented by their Directors, diverted the funds to various industries like Power/energy, Diary, Entertain, Health. (Ayurvedic), Farm Land Ventures etc., without knowledge of the depositors and defaulted to return the deposits either in cash or in kind as agreed upon. SEBI in its report on 14.09.2015 declared that the business of M/s. Agri Gold Farm Estates India Private Limited was nothing but a Collective Investment Scheme and ordered the company to stop taking further deposits and return the money to the depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case is registered against Agri Gold Group of Companies and others in F. No. ECIR/HYZO/09/2018/4377, in which the petitioner was issued summons by the 1st respondent. He further submits that there are cases registered against the management of M/s. Agri Gold Farm Estates India Private Limited, in different police stations of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka and in all the cases, the names of Chairman, Directors and the names of relatives were also included by the police without making investigation and they were arrested in all such cases and later released on bail; that the Government has assigned the cases to C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and almost the investigation is completed in all the cases and police have filed charge sheets in most of cases and in many of the cases, the condition imposed by the respective Courts against the Directors to appear before the Investigating Authorities was relaxed. He also submits that the Chairman of Agri Gold Company was in jail for two years and now he is on regular bail and that after arrest of the Chairman and Directors of accused company, the C.I.D., Andhra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Directorate of Enforcement since issuance of its first summon and had submitted all the information required by the authorities and even now the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the 1st respondent and submit any information as sought by the 1st respondent. He further submits that the petitioner has not involved in any crime and that he will be harassed and humiliated by the Directorate of Enforcement if he is arrested by them. He also submits that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and permanent resident of Hyderabad and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed in the event of his enlargement on anticipatory bail. He further submits that there is also no allegation against the petitioner that he ever influenced any of the prosecution witnesses or tampered with any of the evidence and therefore, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court as well as the High Courts of various States: 1. Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 2. Nikesh Taruchand Shah v. Union of India and another (2018) 11 SCC 1 3. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interrogation of the petitioner, granting any sort of relief including; anticipatory bail to the petitioner would disable the respondent from further tracing the proceeds of crime and attaching it provisionally under Section 5 (1) of PMLA, 2002, which is one of the objectives of the Act. He also submits that the economic offences stand as a class apart and custodial interrogation is required for the Enforcement Directorate to trace the trail of money. He further submits that grant of anticipatory bail at this crucial stage of investigation would definitely hamper the effective investigation and, therefore, prayed to dismiss the anticipatory bail application. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused all the relevant materials relied on by both sides. 8. A three Judges' Bench of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others 2020 SCC Online SC 98 while dealing with the purpose, object and function of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, observed in paragraph Nos. 19 and 20 as under: 19. The object of Section 438 Cr.P C. has been repeatedly explained by this Court and the High Courts to mean that a person should not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yet be denied bail, because of the twin conditions that have to be satisfied under Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act. Also, Mr. A may well be prosecuted for an offence which falls within Part A of the Schedule, but which does not involve money laundering. Such offences would be liable to be tried under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and despite the fact that it may be the very same Part A scheduled offence given in the illustration above, the fact that no prosecution for money laundering along with the said offence is launched, would enable Mr. A to get bail without the rigorous conditions contained in Section 45 of the 2002 Act. All these examples show that manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory and unjust results would arise on the application or non-application of Section 45 and would directly violate Articles 14 and 21, inasmuch as the procedure for bail would become harsh, burdensome, wrongful and discriminatory depending upon whether a person is being tried for an offence which also happens to be an offence under Part A of the Schedule, or an offence under Part A of the Schedule together with an offence under the 2002 Act Obviously, the grant of bail would depend upon a circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rting justice (or a fair investigation), likelihood of evading or fleeing justice-to impose special conditions. Imposing such conditions, would have to be on a case to case basis, and upon exercise of discretion by the court seized of the application under Section 438. In conclusion, it is held that imposing conditions, such as those stated in Section 437(21 while granting bail, are normal; equally, the condition that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery. Other conditions, which are restrictive, are not mandatory; nor is there any invariable rule that they should necessarily be imposed or that the anticipatory bail order would be for a time duration, or be valid till the filing of the FIR, or the recording of any statement under Section 161. Cr.P.C. etc. Other conditions may be imposed, if the facts of the case so warrant. 12. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah case (2018) 11 SCC 1 (supra) and Sushila Aggarwal case(supra), Chhattisgarh High Court in Anil Tuteja and others v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and since the petitioner has been regularly attending before the respondent authorities as and when called for and cooperating with the investigation by furnishing required information; the main accused have already been arrested and their custodial interrogation has already been done by the respondent authorities; major part of the investigation has already been completed and the properties worth ₹ 4109.13 Crores have already been attached, the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not required. In such circumstances, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain conditions is justifiable. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail on the following terms and conditions: i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad, within a period of fifteen days from today, and on such surrender, he shall be released on bail on -his executing a personal bond to the tune of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with two sureties each to the like amount to his satisfaction. ii) The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
