TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not applied, independently also, the petitioner is not entitled for bail at this stage when the investigation is in progress and where the allegations are grave in nature and that too, when fraud is committed by embezzlement of an amount to a tune of Rs.318 crores and Indian depositors were deceived. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the request of the petitioner cannot be honoured at this stage. This Criminal Petition is dismissed. - Criminal Petition No. 9695 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2022 - Hon ble Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha For the Petitioner : Avinash Desai. For the Respondent : Anil Prasad Tiwari SC For ED. ORDER Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel, who argued on behalf of Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel on record for the petitioner. Also, heard Sri Anil Prasad Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate. 2. Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in ECIR No.ECIR/HYZO/26/2022 of Hyderabad zone, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. The matrix of the case, as could be perceived through the contents of the Enforcement Cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ective shareholders. M/s Farmax India Limited sold the converted equity in Indian Stock Markets and caused a loss of Rs.55 crores to Indian investors. The stock price of M/s Farmax India Limited is reported to be Rs.0.04 per share, where it was priced at Rs.120/- per share prior to GDR issue. 6. Accused No.3-Arun Pacharia appears to be involved in multiple GDR issues and huge amount was transferred to foreign countries in the form of GDRs, the proceeds of which was ultimately defaulted. The criminal activities thus committed by the accused are punishable under Sections 406, 407, 415, 420 and 120-B r/w 34 IPC. Prima facie case is thus made out for an offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PMLA Act, 2002 for brevity) which is punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. 7. Making his submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the initial complaint was given by M/s Farmax Private Limited which is represented by Srinivas Reddy. The said Srinivas Reddy, who is the defacto complainant in the predicate case, i.e., Crime No.664 of 2013 of Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad, is arrayed as accused i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the said Srinivas Reddy is shown as the defacto complainant. Learned Standing Counsel also states that the GDRs issued by various Indian companies including M/s Farmax India Limited were subscribed by a firm by name M/s Vintage FZE which is controlled by accused No.3-Arun Pacharia. Learned Standing Counsel states that the said Arun Pacharia with the help of the petitioner, mortgaged all the GDRs payable to Indian Issuing Companies and took loan from Euram Bank, Austria. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the proceeds of the GDRs itself was kept as pledge with Euram Bank and the accused are not supposed to do so. Learned Standing Counsel also submits that the loan taken by M/s Vintage FZE was finally defaulted and the outstanding loan was adjusted by GDRs proceeds, which was initially provided by Euram Bank. Learned Standing Counsel also states that GDRs were converted into equity and thereafter, they were sold in Indian market. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the fact of entering into pledge was not disclosed to the respective shareholders and further, the converted equity was sold in the Indian Stock Markets causing loss of Rs.55 crores to Indian investors. Learned Stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t A of the Schedule shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person who is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm or is accused either on his own or along with other Courtaccused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees, may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs: Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or a special order made in this behalf by that Government. (1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Directorate, Government of India, through the Assistant Director, Raipur [2022 SCC Online Chh 1731] . 13. The mandate of law is that apart from Section 45 of PMLA Act, 2002, the requirement under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should also be taken note of. In the case on hand, there are grave allegations that are directed against the petitioner. Also, by the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate, it is clear that the presence of the petitioner could not be secured easily. Learned Standing Counsel states that only after issuance of Look Out Circular, the petitioner could be traced out and arrested. The apprehension of the investigating agency i.e., the Enforcement Directorate is that in case, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may interrupt the investigating process by threatening the witnesses. Learned Standing Counsel also submits that some crucial documents are yet to be traced out. A submission is also made that the proceeds of crime was converted for purchase of movable and immovable properties by the petitioner and in that regard, investigation is yet in progress. 14. Having considered the submissions thus made, this Court is of the view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
