TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompanies, outside the company. So also, applicant was not available for investigation for considerable period. His conduct, therefore, cannot be overlooked. Yet investigation is in progress. Possibility of feelling the country, cannot be ruled out, in the back-drop of this conduct. There are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant/accused is not guilty of often punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act, 2002. Conduct of the accused is relevant factor while recording the satisfaction whether he is likely to commit offence if released on bail.. In this case, the applicant-accused was declared proclaimed offender and was not available for investigation for considerable period. Possibility cannot be ruled out that accused/applicant may also tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. Application deserves no consideration - application dismissed. - BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2109 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 29-11-2019 - SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. Mr. V.P.Sawant i/by Mr. Sandeep S. Salunke for the Applicant. Mr. H.S.Venegaonkar for Respondent No.1. Mr. Y.M.Nakhwace, APP for the Respondent-State. ORDER P.C. : Applicant is seeking enlargement on bail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the kingpin behind all the three companies i.e., M/s. Shree Charbhuja Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Yogeshwar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Kanika Gems Pvt. Ltd. He stated to cover the Hawala activity applicant and his associates were indulging in the business of import of diamonds and for this purpose, they were receiving funds through fictitious companies controlled by the applicant. 4 The statement of Sunil Kumar Chokhara, Director of M/s. Shree Charbhuja Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Yogeshwar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. came to be recorded under Section 50(2) of the PML Act, 2002. He stated, he was made one of the directors of M/s. Shree Charbhuja Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Yogeshwar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. as per the directions of Shri Vijay Kothari (Applicant herein). 5 Statement of Khushboo Kothari, wife of Shri Vijay Kothari (Applicant) came to be recorded under Section 50(2) of the PML Act, 2002. She inter-alia stated, her husband is engaged in diamond related business and she had opened one bank account in the IndusInd Bank, which was subsequently closed in 2013. When she was confronted with credit entries in the bank statement to the extent of ₹ 1.83 Crores, she replied that al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds through dubious companies through scores of such bank accounts controlled by him. He floated various fictitious companies for routing of funds with the help of other co-accused. 9 It is complainant s case that searches were conducted at the premise of the applicant, however, he could not be found. Applicant thus, willfully avoided to appear before the Investigating Officer. 10 Investigation thus, revealed the applicant is the kingpin and master-mind of the entire act in money laundering and fraudulent remittances of foreign exchange to the Hong Kong based companies by way of submitting forged bills of entry and other import documents to Bank. 11 It may be stated that complaint was lodged under Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 in June, 2017. However, applicant was not available for investigation, though process was issued on 19th June, 2017. Record shows, that applicant had not joined investigation and NBW and thereafter proclamation was issued against the applicant and he was declared proclaimed offender on 12th February, 2018. A standing NBW was issued against the applicant. At-last, applicant appeared before the complainant on 17th March, 2019 and surrendered himself. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 15 Thus, it is evident that above factors must be taken into account while determining whether bail should be granted in cases involving grave economic offences. 16 In the case at hand, the applicant in connivance with Anil Chokhara, remitted funds amounting to ₹ 137,80,28,114.38 on account of advance import and deliberately did not submit import documents to the bank and as such, managed to siphon of huge amount totalling to ₹ 518,23,59,962/- to foreign shores in the guise of import. Hence, when seriousness of offence was of such magnitude, mere fact that accused is in jail since 17th March, 2019 is in consequential. 17 No doubt, seven years is maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 and investigation in this case is in progress. Huge amount has been siphoned of by the applicant by floating fictitious companies. The statements recorded under Section 50(2) of the PML Act, 2002 are admissible in evidence since every proceeding under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50ce, are deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
