9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... family members, as mentioned in the complaint, which reads as follows: - "(2). Brief summary of cause of action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The complainant submits that the condition precedent to investigate the offence of Money Laundering by the Complainant/ Directorate of Enforcement is either an FIR or a Police Report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. or a complaint, in respect of scheduled offences under the PMLA, 2002. The PMLA, 2002, is an act to prevent Money Laundering and to provide for confiscation of any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from, or involved in any process or activity connected to proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property. Since Sections 120-B, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, 1860, and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, invoked in the above mentioned FIRS are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PMLA), and whereas section 2 (1)(y) of PMLA provides "Schedule offence" means (1) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule or (ii) the offences specified und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssociated firms/companies and other fraudulent firms by the accused persons through a web of transactions as explained in para 7.3 of this complaint and ultimately the funds were diverted and siphoned off. Sh. Vikram Seth entered into sham business transaction with those entities which were controlled by his acquaintances and friends. In addition to the above, Sh. Vikram Seth used to canvass that he was influential enough to obtain loans for those acquaintances through his connections with Bank of Baroda and used to engage himself in manipulating records showing inflated revenues and profits and thereby entitle those entities for loans beyond their genuine entitlements. It has also been found out during investigation, that upon disbursal of loans to those entities, he would demand and obtain commission ranging from 12% to 14%. The amounts thus obtained were thereafter diverted to be credited to any of the entities controlled by him or his close relatives in the guise of a commercial transaction. (2.5). Out of the proceeds of crime, as defined in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, so generated, some funds are directly or indirectly parked in immovable and movable assets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offence of money laundering as defined in section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 as elaborated against their names in para 13 of this complaint." 4. As per the complaint, the specific role attributed to the petitioner Suraj Seth reads as under: - I. Sh Suraj Seth S/o Vikram Seth is not an accused in FIRS registered by the CBI and the Police in this case, but during the investigation conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement, it is noticed that immovable property being H.No. 524-B, Adarsh Nagar, Phagwara registered jointly in his name and in the name of his cousin Vishal Sethwas transferred by the accused persons without any consideration. The proceeds of crime, generated in the case, are found directly or indirectly parked in this immovable property as elaborated in Para 7.6.1 of this complaint. II. Two properties in his name being 16.5 Marla at Village Nauranshahpur, Tehsil Phagwara and 2 Kanal 6 Marla at Village Sahni, Phagwara, were transferred to him by the accused persons without any consideration and he admitted that he just signed the property documents as per the dictates of his father Sh. Vikram Seth. As elaborated in pata 7.7, 8 and 9 of this complaint, these immovable proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Doc Id # 1933969], this Court observed, [53]. The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with sureties, the "Court" and the "Arresting Officer" should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit, or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is available, or creating a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further option to switch between the modes. The option lies with the accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the Court or the arresting officer. 13. Given above, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the case mentioned above, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac only (INR 1,00,000/-), and furnishing one surety for Rs. Five lacs (INR 5,00,000/-), to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Before accepting the sureties, the concerned officer must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in Court, then such surety is capable of producing the petitioner before the Court. 14. In the alternative, the petitioner may furnish a personal bond of Rs. One lac only (INR 1,00,000/-), and hand over to the the attesting officer, a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
