Case Details

M/S Saibhakti Impex Pvt Ltd. Vs Assistant Director (Pmla)

Case Details

casenoCase TypeBA
casenoFiling Number2532/2018
casenoRegistration Number1199/2018
caseno Filing Date05-09-2018
hearingRegistration Date06-09-2018
hearingFirst Hearing Date06th September 2018
dateDecision Date29th September 2018
casestatusCase StatusCase Disposed
courtCourt Number and Judge1-District And Sessions Judge;
natureNature of DisposalContested--Disposed;

Petitioners & Respondents

contactsPetitioner

Gaurav Kirpal, M/S Saibhakti Impex Pvt Ltd., M/S Best Exports, M/S G B Creative Line, Prenda Creatio Show more..

contactsPetitioner Advocate

Saurabh Kapoor;

contacts Respondent Name

Assistant Director (Pmla);

Order Details

orderdate Order Date06-09-2018 documents

CNR No.CHCH01-007696-2018 BA/1199/2018. Gaurav Kirpal & Ors. Versus Assisant Director (PMLA). Present: Shri Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Bail application received by self entrustment. It be registered. Notice of the bail application is to be issued to the respondents, but Shri Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director complainant. Shri Sunil Narang, Advocate for the respondents have put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and copy of the bail application supplied to respondent who is present in the court today in connection with other bail applications, filed in the same case and are to be adjudicated together and accepted the service. Respondent seeks adjournment to file reply to the bail application on the ground that time was short and more time is required for filing the detailed reply to the bail application as the record of the case is voluminous. To come up on 20.09.2018 for arguments on the bail application. However, detailed reply of the bail application shall be filed on behalf of the respondent on or before 15.09.2018 with advance copy, so that arguments be taken up on the next date of hearing. (Balbir Singh) Sessions Judge/CHD. (UID:PB0021) Date of order: 06.09.2018. (Varun Kumar) (Stenographer Gr.II) Next date: 20.09.2018.

orderdate Order Date20-09-2018 documents

CNR No.CHCH01-007696-2018 BA/1199/2018. Gaurav Kirpal & Ors. Versus Assistant Director. Present : Shri Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director represented by Shri Sunil Narang, Advocate for the respondent-complainant. Reply has already been filed on 15.09.2018. Adjournment is requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner for addressing the arguments in the bail application. To come up on 24.09.2018 for arguments. (Balbir Singh) Sessions Judge/CHD. (UID:PB0021) Date of order: 20.09.2018. (Varun Kumar) (Stenographer Gr.II) Next date: 24.09.2018. (Purpose)

orderdate Order Date24-09-2018 documents

CNR No.CHCH01-007696-2018. BA/1199/2018. Gaurav Kirpal & Ors. Versus Assistant Director. Present: Shri Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. File put up before me today as Shri Balbir Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh is on leave. To come up on 25.09.2018 for arguments. File be sent back to the court concerned. (Aaradhana Sawhney) ASJ-I//CHD (Duty). Date of order: 24.09.2018. (Varun Kumar) (Stenographer Gr.II) Next date: 25.09.2018. (Purpose)

orderdate Order Date25-09-2018 documents

CNR No.CHCH01-007696-2018. BA/1199/2018. Gaurav Kirpal & Ors. Versus Assistant Director. Present: Shri Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director represented by Shri Sunil Narang, Advocate for the respondent- complainant. Further adjournment is requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner for addressing the arguments in the bail application. To come up on 27.09.2018 for arguments. (Balbir Singh) Sessions Judge, CHD. (UID: PB0021). Date of order: 25.09.2018. (Varun Kumar) (Stenographer Gr.II) Next date: 27.09.2018. (Purpose)

orderdate Order Date27-09-2018 documents

CNR No.CHCH01-007696-2018. BA/1199/2018. Gaurav Kirpal & Ors. Versus Assistant Director. Present: Shri Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director represented by Shri Sunil Narang, Advocate for the respondent- complainant. Part arguments heard. For remaining arguments, to come up on 28.09.2018. (Balbir Singh) Sessions Judge, CHD. (UID: PB0021). Date of order: 27.09.2018. (Varun Kumar) (Stenographer Gr.II) Next date: 28.09.2018. (Purpose)

orderdate Order Date28-09-2018 documents

CNR No.CHCH01-007696-2018. BA/1199/2018. Gaurav Kirpal & Ors. Versus Assistant Director. Present: Shri Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director represented by Shri Sunil Narang, Advocate for the respondent- complainant. Arguments concluded. To come up on 29.09.2018 for orders. (Balbir Singh) Sessions Judge, CHD. (UID: PB0021). Date of order: 28.09.2018. (Varun Kumar) (Stenographer Gr.II) Next date: 29.09.2018. (Purpose)

Final Order Judgement

orderdateOrder Date29-09-2018 documents
1 IN THE COURT OF SHRI BALBIR SINGH, SESSIONS JUDGE, CHANDIGARH. (UID NO. PB0021). (I) Bail Application no....1119 of 23.8.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-007237-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. 1. Virendar Mohan Trehan, aged about 75 years, s/o late Sh. F.C. Trehan, r/o Z-15B, TGB, Meghdutam, Sector-50, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301. Office Address:- 908, 9th Floor, Ansal Bhawan, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001. 2. M/s Mekaster Ecosystems Pvt. Ltd., 908, 9th Floor, Ansal Bhawan, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (through its Director Virendar Mohan Trehan). 3. M/s Mekaster Engineering Ltd., 908, 9th Floor, Ansal Bhawan, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (through its Director Virendar Mohan Trehan). ……….Petitioners. Versus Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Office, UT Press Building, Ist Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 18, Chandigarh-160018. …..........Respondent. First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Present: Sh. Siddharth Pandit, counsel for petitioners. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ****** (2) Bail Application no....1149 of 28.8.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-007402-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. 2 1. Ashu Mehra, age 40 years, son of Sh. Roop Lal Mehra, resident of H.No.267, Sector -10, Chandigarh. 2. M/s Heights International Tadehub Pvt. Ltd., SCO 210-211, 3rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. 3. M/s Global Trade Matrix Pvt. Ltd., House no. 267, Sector -10, Chandigarh. 4. M/s Mehra & Sons HUF, H.No. 267, Sector 10-, Chandigarh. 5. M/s AM Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd., H. No.267, Sector -10, Chandigarh. 6. M/s Trade Hub India Pvt. Ltd., SCO 210-211, 3 rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. 7. M/s Lease Harbour, H.No. 267, Sector 10, Chandigarh. ……….Petitioners. Versus Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Officer, Chandigarh-160018. …..........Respondent. First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Present: Sh. Siddharth Pandit, counsel for petitioners. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ***** (3) Bail Application no....1150 of 28.8.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-007403-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. Brigadier (Retd.), M.S. Dullat, age 75 years, son of S.B.S. Dullat, resident of House no. 1563, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh. ……….Petitioner. 3 Versus Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Officer, Chandigarh-160018. …..........Respondent. First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Present: Sh. Siddharth Pandit, counsel for petitioner. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ***** (4) Bail Application no....1188 of 4.9.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-007626-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. Rajinder Kumar Pahwa, Director, M/s Goodluck Carbon Pvt. Ltd., D-54/1 (2nd Floor), 100 Feet Road, Chhatarpur Road, New Delhi. ……….Petitioner. Versus Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Office, UT Press Building, Ist Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 18, Chandigarh-160018. …..........Respondent. First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Present: Sh.Charanjit Singh Bakshi, counsel for petitioner. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ***** 4 (5) Bail Application no....1189 of 4.9.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-007627-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. Utkarsh Pahwa s/o Shri Rajender Kumar Pahwa, Farm no.39, Dera- Mandi Road, Chhatarpur, New Delhi-110074, Director of M/s Spectrum Credit and Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Raj Tower-IG, 1, Alaknanda Community Centre, New Delhi-110019. ……….Petitioner. Versus Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Office, UT Press Building, Ist Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 18, Chandigarh-160018. …..........Respondent. First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* Present: Sh.Charanjit Singh Bakshi, counsel for petitioner. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ***** (6) Bail Application no....1190 of 4.9.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-007631-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. 1. Amanpreet Singh Sodhi, aged about 44 years s/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi, r/o House no. 26, Sargodha Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, having Aadhar Card no.7754 1605 9108. 2. M/s Heights International (through its Proprietor Amanpreet Singh Sodhi), SCO 8 & 9, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, also at 1681/1A/5, Subhash Nagar, Bhagwan Nagar Road, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana, Punjab. 5 3. M/s Color 9 Productions LLP, Village Kubbe, Tehsil Samrala, Ludhiana (through its partner Amanpreet Singh Sodhi). ……….Petitioners. Versus Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Officer, Chandigarh-160018. …..........Respondent. First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* Present: Sh.Shekhar Verma, counsel for petitioners. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ***** (7) Bail Application no....1195 of 6.9.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-006832-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. Atul Kumar Garg son of Sh. Ram Gopal Garg, age about 40 years, partner of M/s Besco International FZE, Office no.E51G-28, Ground Floor, PO Box 50424, Hamriyah Free Zone, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, Permanent Address: B-59, Coral Spring Colony, Kila Road, Meerut. ……….Petitioner. Versus Assistant Director, Prevention of Money Laundering, Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Office, Sector 18, Chandigarh. …..........Respondent. First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* 6 Present: Sh.Deepak Gupta, counsel for petitioner. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ***** (8) Bail Application no....1196 of 6.9.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-007685-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. 1. Dinesh Kumar s/o Sh. Lahori Lal, aged 49 years, resident of H. No. 3086/1, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh. 2. M/s Vision Procon (through its Proprietor Sh. Dinesh Kumar, H. No. 3086/1, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh. 3. M/s Al Dishu Trading FZE, SM Office, H1 Bld Office No.231-C, Ajman Free Zone Area, St. Ajman Emirate Ajman (through its Proprietor Sh. Dinesh Kumar). 4. M/s Dreamheight Homes Pvt. Ltd., SCO no.210-211, IIrd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh (through its Director Sh. Dinesh Kumar). 5. M/s Dinesh Kumar & Sons (HUF), resident of H. No. 3086/1, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh (through its Karta Dinesh Kumar). ……….Petitioners. Versus Assistant Director, (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Office, UT Press Building, Ist Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 18, Chandigarh-160018. …..........Respondent. First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* Present: Sh.Akshay Mittal, counsel for petitioners. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ***** 7 (9) Bail Application no....1197 of 6.9.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-007692-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. 1. Rakesh Kumar s/o Sh. Karanjit Kumar, aged 49 years, resident of H. No.127, Sector 10, Panchkula. 2. M/s Rap Events, H.No.127, Sector 10, Panchkula (through its Partner Sh. Rakesh Kumar). ……….Petitioners. Versus Assistant Director, (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Office, UT Press Building, Ist Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 18, Chandigarh-160018. …..........Respondent. First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* Present: Sh.Saurabh Kapoor, counsel for petitioners. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ***** (10) Bail Application no....1198 of 6.9.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-007695-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. Leela Kirpal w/o Sh. Kaushal Nath Kirpal, aged 77 years, resident of Villa no.14, Janpath Estate, South City, Canal Road, Ludhiana. ……….Petitioner. Versus Assistant Director, (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Office, UT Press Building, Ist Floor, Madhya 8 Marg, Sector 18, Chandigarh-160018. …..........Respondent. First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* Present: Sh.Saurabh Kapoor, counsel for petitioner. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ***** (11) Bail Application no....1199 of 6.9.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-007696-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. 1. Gaurav Kirpal s/o Sh. Kaushal Nath Kirpal, aged 48 years, resident of village no.14A, Janpath Estate, South City, Canal Road, Ludhiana. 2. M/s Saibhakti Impex Pvt. Ltd. (through its Director Gaurav Kirpal), 306, Industrial Area, Phase-A, Ludhiana. 3. M/s Best Exports (through its Proprietor Sh. Gaurav Kirpal), 306, Industrial Area, Phase-A, Ludhiana. 4. M/s G B Creative Line, 306, Industrial Area A, Near Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana 141 003 (through its Authorized Person Gaurav Kirpal). 5. Prenda Creations Pvt. Ltd., SCO 291, Ist Floor, Sector 35, Chandigarh (through its Authorized Person Gaurav Kirpal). ……….Petitioners. Versus Assistant Director, (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Office, UT Press Building, Ist Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 18, Chandigarh-160018. …..........Respondent. 9 First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* Present: Sh.Saurabh Kapoor, counsel for petitioners. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ***** (12) Bail Application no....1200 of 6.9.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-007697-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. 1. Aman Kirpal s/o Sh. Kaushal Nath Kirpal, aged 45 years, resident of Villa no.14A, Janpath Estate, South city, Canal Road, Ludhiana. 2. M/s Saibhakti Impex Pvt. Ltd. (through its Director Gaurav Kirpal), 306, Industrial Area, Phase-A, Ludhiana. ……….Petitioners. Versus Assistant Director, (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Office, UT Press Building, Ist Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 18, Chandigarh-160018. …..........Respondent. First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* Present: Sh.Saurabh Kapoor, counsel for petitioners. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ***** (13) Bail Application no....1201 of 6.9.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-007698-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. 1. Surinder Kumar Plata s/o late Sh. Ramji Das Palta, aged 70 years, 10 resident of H. No. 1128, Sector 15, Chandigarh. 2. M/s Pioneer Knitting, 306, Industrial Area A, Ludhiana (through its Proprietor Sh. Surinder Kumar Palta). ……….Petitioners. Versus Assistant Director, (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Office, UT Press Building, Ist Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 18, Chandigarh-160018. …..........Respondent. First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* Present: Sh.Saurabh Kapoor, counsel for petitioners. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ***** (14) Bail Application no....1202 of 6.9.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-007699-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. 1. Vandana Johar d/o Sh. Kaushal Nath Kirpal, aged 51 years, resident of H. No.16-R, Model Town, Ludhiana. 2. M/s Omkara Worldwide (P) Ltd., H. No.135, Ist Floor, Sector 28A, Chandigarh (through its Share Holder Smt. Vandana Johar). 3. Keshav International, 16-R, Model Town, Ludhiana (through its Proprietor Smt. Vandana Johar). ……….Petitioners. Versus Assistant Director, (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Office, UT Press Building, Ist Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 18, Chandigarh-160018. …..........Respondent. 11 First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* Present: Sh.Saurabh Kapoor, counsel for petitioners. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ***** (15) Bail Application no....1210 of 6.9.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-007730-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. 1. Amanpreet Singh Sodhi, aged about 44 years s/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi, r/o House no. 26, Sargodha Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, having Aadhar Card no. 7754 1605 9108 authorized person and Director in Geoxa Steels Pvt. Ltd-Accused number 7, Village Kube, Tehsil Samrala, Ludhiana, Punjab-141418. 2. Amanpreet Singh Sodhi, aged about 44 years s/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi, r/o House no. 26, Sargodha Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, having Aadhar Card no. 7754 1605 9108, Director Colour Wave (HK) Ltd- Accused number 8 through its having office address at Ground Floor, CAR, PO Commercial Building 18-20, Land Hurst-Terrace Central Hong Kong, Also at 4/E, Flat D-E, Wah Factory Building, 50-60, Wong-Chuk Hang Road Aberdeen. 3. Amanpreet Singh Sodhi, aged about 44 years s/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi, r/o House no. 26, Sargodha Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, having Aadhar Card no. 7754 1605 9108, Director in M/s Mekaster Ecosystems Pvt. Ltd- Accused no. 17, # 908, Ansal Bhawan 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. 4. Amanpreet Singh Sodhi, aged about 44 years s/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi, r/o House no. 26, Sargodha Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, having Aadhar Card no. 7754 1605 9108, Director in M/s Prithvi Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., Accused number 24, SCO-210- 211, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. 5. Amanpreet Singh Sodhi, aged about 44 years s/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi, r/o House no. 26, Sargodha Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, having Aadhar Card no. 7754 1605 9108, Director in M/s Geoxa Foods Pvt. Ltd. (OPC)- Accused Number 34, Works: 12 Village Kubbe, Tehsil: Samrala, Ludhiana, Punjab – 141418. 6. Amanpreet Singh Sodhi, aged about 44 years s/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi, r/o House no. 26, Sargodha Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, having Aadhar Card no. 7754 1605 9108, Director in M/s Geoxa Impex Pvt. Ltd. Accused No.35, Village Kubbe, Tehsil: Samrala, Ludhiana, Punjab – 141418. 7. Amanpreet Singh Sodhi, aged about 44 years s/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi, r/o House no. 26, Sargodha Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, having Aadhar Card no. 7754 1605 9108, Director in M/s Ludhianvi Tigers Pvt. Ltd. Accused Number 37 (OPC) B-18-2516, Jawahar Nagar Camp, Ludhiana – 141001. ……….Petitioners. Versus Assistant Director, (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Officer, Chandigarh. …..........Respondent. First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* Present: Sh.Saurabh Kapoor, counsel for petitioners. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ***** (16) Bail Application no....1266 of 20.9.2018. Computer I.D. No.:CHCH01-008098-2018 Date of Order :- ....................29.09.2018. 1. Kaushal Nath Kirpal s/o Sh. Sagli Ram Kirpal, aged 80 years, resident of Villa no.82, Janpath Estate, South City, Canal Road, Ludhiana. 2. M/s Prenda Creations Pvt. Ltd., SCO 291, Ist Floor, Sector 35, Chandigarh (through its Director Kaushal Nath Kirpal). ……….Petitioners. 13 Versus Assistant Director, (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal Office, UT Press Building, Ist Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 18, Chandigarh-160018. …..........Respondent. First Application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* Present: Sh.Saurabh Kapoor, counsel for petitioners. Sh. Sunil Narang, Spl. PP for the respondent assisted by Sh. Roopesh Kumar, Assistant Director for respondent. ***** ORDER : The petitioners/accused have been summoned to face trial in a statutory complaint titled as Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement vs. Ashu Mehra and others filed u/s 45(1) of PMLA, 2002 (in short, 'the Act') for commission of offence u/s 3 read with section 4 of the Act. 2. This order of mine shall dispose of sixteen anticipatory bail applications mentioned above, filed by different set of accused in each case having arisen out of the same complaint case. All the bail applications have been taken up together, have arisen out of the complaint case filed by Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement vs. Ashu Mehra & Ors. 0n the basis of investigation of case ECIR No. CDZO/06 of 19.09.2016 registered with Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh Zonal, Govt. of India, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as E.D.) for the commission of offence 14 under section 3 and punishable under section 4 of the Act. 3. Notices of the bail applications were issued to the complainant department, who filed replies to the bail applications contesting the same. 4. Brief facts of the case were that the present case had arisen in the course of investigation of CBI in case bearing FIR no.RCBD1/2016/E/0007 dt. 8.8.2016 u/s 120-B, 420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 against the accused Ashu Mehra, Nitish Negi, Gaurav Bhatia, Dinesh Kumar, Amanpreet Singh Sodhi, M/s Sai Bhakti Impex Pvt. Ltd through its Director Gaurav Kirpal and Aman Kirpal, M/s Colour Wave (HK) Ltd and Brig. (Retd.) M.S. Dullat; that during investigation, it was revealed that the main accused Ashu Mehra had fraudulently issued 14 LOUs through SWIFT messages, while working in Indian Overseas Bank and the same had resulted in creation of liability to the tune of Rs.299 crores on the said bank, which was yet to be paid by Indian Overseas Bank to Punjab National Bank, Dubai and Bank of Baroda, Bahamas; that further in respect of all the abovesaid 14 unpaid Buyers Credits, the beneficiary was the Hong Kong based company M/s Colour Wave (HK) Ltd., whose director was Amanpreet Singh Sodhi; that further investigation revealed that there was no actual movement/import of goods behind these 15 fraudulent Buyers Credits and that the said Buyers Credits/LOUs did not have approval of the competent authority in the Indian Overseas Bank before their issuance; that further investigation revealed that accused Ashu Mehra had issued several other fraudulent Buyers Credits/LOUs (through SWIFT messages) along with Letters of Credit in the past, wherein also there was no approval of the competent authority in the Indian Overseas Bank and besides that there had been no movement/import of goods; that the re-payments were made in these cases before due date and therefore presently there had been no liability on the Indian Overseas Bank; that the beneficiaries of these fraudulent Buyers Credit/Foreign Letters of Credit had been the Hong Kong based companies M/s Colour Wave (HK) Ltd., M/s Colour Wave Limited and M/s Paras International Creations Ltd., all of these owned/controlled by accused Amanpreet Singh Sodhi; that further investigation revealed that the proceeds of crime so generated by accused Amanpreet Singh Sodhi in criminal conspiracy with main accused Ashu Mehra, was utilized by them for acquiring various assets and also in investing the same for conduct of business and one such investment had been in the import and further installation of Vapour Recovery Units at various HPCL depots at Kadappa, Bokara and Paradeep sites; that almost all the funding for the 16 aforesaid import and further installation of Vapour Recovery Units were arranged by accused Amanpreet Singh Sodhi and Ashu Mehra and they were helped in the business by accused Brig. (Retd.) M.S. Dullat; that a company M/s Mekaster Engineering Limited was found to be in receipt of regular payments in its UCO Bank account no. 04880210001585 from M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd on completion of installation of Vapour Recovery Units at their various depots and the funds so received by Ms/ Mekaster Engineering Limited from M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd were further remitted by them to Amanpreet Singh Sodhi, his proprietorship firm M/s Heights International and their associate firm M/s Vision Procon and the said funds were also linked with the proceeds of crime; that during investigation, accused Virender Mohan Trehan, who was Chairman of M/s Mekaster Group of Companies and also a Director in M/s Mekaster Engineering Limited and M/s Mekaster Ecosystems Private Limited, was found to be not accepting to be aware of the fraud committed by accused Ashu Mehra and Amanpreet Singh Sodhi in the Indian Overseas Bank; that after search conducted by the department at his office premises in April 2017 and also even prior to that, his company M/s Mekaster Engineering Ltd had been in receipt of funds, which were linked with proceeds of crime; that a total amount of 17 Rs.6,05,80,189.00 was made back to accused Amanpreet Singh Sodhi by M/s Mekaster Engineering Limited, after registration of the FIR in the instant matter by CBI; that immediately after conduct of searches at business premises of M/s Mekaster Ecosystems Pvt. Ltd on 7.4.2017, the UCO Bank account no. 04880210001585 of the company M/s Mekaster Engineering Ltd was freezed under the provisions of PMLA, 2002 as the said account of Mekaster group was in receipt of re-payments from M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd which were linked with proceeds of crime; that Virender Mohan Trehan managed to change the bank account details of his company M/s Mekaster Engineering Limited with HPCL for receiving re-payments and accordingly received an amount on 20.6.2017 in A/c no.90383030000113 of M/s Mekaster Engineering Limited in Syndicate Bank; that utilizing the abovesaid amount, Virender Mohan Trehan transferred total amount of Rs.1,49,000/- to his personal bank account no. 90382010072286 in Syndicate Bank vide three transfer of amounts Rs.49,00,000/-, Rs.75,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- on 21.6.2017, 22.6.2017 and 23.6.2017 respectively and hence he acted in criminal conspiracy with other accused Amanpreet Singh Sodhi in laundering of the proceeds of crime; that apart from the above, the Syndicate Bank Account no. 90361010013353 of the accused company M/s Mekaster 18 Ecosystems Private Limited was in receipt of funds of an amount of USD 3,57,419.00 (equivalent to Rs.2,18,33,199.00) from Hong Kong based company M/s Colour Wave Limited and the funds available with the said company were found during investigation to be out of proceeds of crime, arising out of fraudulent Letters of Credits/Buyers Credit issued by accused Ashu Mehra, which were linked with the proceeds of crime; that proceeds of crime so credited in the bank account of accused M/s Mekaster Ecosystems Private Limited were utilized in the installation of Vapour Recovery Units at HPCL depots; that further payments were also made by M/s Colour Wave Limited from their HSBC Bank Account no. 112433461838 in Hong Kong to the Bank account no. 1766112 of M/s Borsig Membrane Technology GMBH, maintained in Commerzbank AG in Germany, the overseas supplier for supply of vapour recovery units; that Vapour Recovery Units, so supplied by the said overseas supplier was imported by Mekaster group and further installed in the HPCL depots, however, the repayments were made by M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited by crediting the UCO Bank account no.04880210001585 of M/s Mekaster Engineering Limited; that Virender Mohan Trehan and his companies viz. M/s Mekaster Engineering Ltd and M/s Mekaster Ecosystems Pvt. Ltd had benefitted out of proceeds of crime; that after conduct of 19 searches at his business premises on 7.4.2017 by the department under the provisions of PMLA, 2002, Virender Mohan Trehan was very well aware of the fact that the funds invested by the accused Amanpreet Singh Sodhi through his firms/company for import and installation of Vapour Recovery Units at HPCL depots were linked with proceeds of crime but he chose to suppress this fact before M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and further managed to change the Bank Account details of his company M/s Mekaster Engineering Ltd as notified to HPCL in the e-mandate submitted to them; that by getting the account details changed in HPCL records, viz. From UCO bank to Syndicate Bank, he managed to receive further payments from HPCL and accordingly received one amount of Rs.2,99,68,894.00 on 20.06.2017 in A/c no.90383030000113 of M/s Mekaster Engineering Ltd. as Syndicate Bank. It was the case of the complainant that accused Ashu Mehra was the main mastermind, who while working in the complainant bank, viz. Indian Overseas Bank, Sector 7, Chandigarh, issued fraudulent Buyers Credit / LOUs (through SWIFT messages) as well as LCs (Letters of Credit) without taking necessary approval of the competent authority in the bank. These fraudulent LOUs include the 14 fraudulent unpaid Buyers Credits, which had resulted in creation of a liability to the tune of Rs. 300 crores on the IOB 20 which was due to be paid by them to the funding bank, viz. PNB, Dubai and Bank of Baroda, Bahamas. Further, in most cases of issuance of fraudulent LOUs / Buyers Credits, the same were issued without sanctioned limit and entering of the same in the CBS system of the bank. There were no import of goods corresponding to these fraudulent LOUs and investigation conducted in few cases had indicated that he had used Bills of Lading of import consignments of other customers of the IOB. The accused Ashu Mehra had purchased the following properties in the name of his company M/s Global Trade Matrix Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mehra & Sons HUF: 1) Residential property situated at H. No. 267, Sector 10A, Chandigarh in the name of M/s Global Trade Matrix Pvt. Ltd.; II) Residential property situated at H. No. 3348, Sector 35D, Chandigarh and another Freehold Residential House No. 191, Green Avenue, Amritsar (admeasuring 327 Sq. Yards) bearing Khasra No. 1250/505-506 situated at Tungbala Urban Green Avenue, Amritsar, both properties in the name of M/s Mehra & Sons HUF. It was also the case of the complainant that accused Dinesh Kumar was proprietor of M/s Vision Procon, an applicant Indian importer firm, for fraudulent Buyers Credit. 8 unpaid Buyers 21 Credits/LOUs, of a total amount of USD 2,51,37,360.00, were issued in the name of his said import firm, having the overseas supplier M/s Colour Wave (HK) Ltd. as its beneficiary. He admitted in his various statements recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 to be working, on the directions of the main accused Ashu Mehra. During investigation, accused Dinesh Kumar was found to have established one firm M/s Al Dishu Trading FZE in UAE; that in the said UAE based firm, there were receipt of various foreign inward remittances from Hong Kong based company M/s Colour Wave (HK) Ltd. which were linked to the proceeds of crime. These proceeds of crime were then remitted from M/s Al Dishu Trading FZE, UAE into India in various export firms of the accused Gaurav Kirpal, namely M/s Saibhakti Impex Pvt. Ltd., M/s Best Exports, M/s Omkara Worldwide Traders Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Pioneer Knitting besides some remittances being also sent to M/s Heights International. Bank Accounts of M/s Vision Procon were in receipt of various funds linked with proceeds of crime. These proceeds of crime were utilized for purchase of immoveable properties at 3086/1, Sector 47D, Chandigarh and also Flat No. 701 on 7th Floor, Block A, Societies Plot No. GH 2, Sector 23, Panchkula. Proceeds of crime were also routed in the bank accounts of M/s Dreamheight Homes Pvt. Ltd. which were utilized by Ashu Mehra for 22 construction of various immoveable properties. It was further the case of complainant that the accused Amanpreet Singh Sodhi was the proprietor of M/s Heights International an applicant Indian importer firm, for fraudulent Buyers Credits. 4 unpaid Buyers Credits/LOUs, of a total amount of USD 1,26,61,716.00, were issued in the name of his said import firm, having the oversea supplier M/s Colour Wave (HK) Ltd. as its beneficiary. The accused Amanpreet Singh Sodhi was also a Director of the Hong Kong based beneficiary company M/s Colour Wave (HK) Ltd.; that the proceeds of crime had been first credited into the said Hong Kong based company M/s Colour Wave (HK) Ltd. and that thereafter the said proceeds of crime were laundered through a chain of inter-account transfers into the bank accounts of the various beneficiaries, including the bank accounts of M/s Heights International, M/s Geoxa Steels Pvt. Ltd., M/s Geoxa Foods Pvt. Ltd., M/s Color 9 Productions LLP and M/s Ludhianvi Tigers Private Limited (OPC). Amanpreet Singh Sodhi had acquired various properties in his name and in the name of firms / companies owned/controlled by him. These properties include the following: 1)SCO 42, Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor, Sector 7, Chandigarh in the name of M/s Heights International / Sh. Amanpreet Singh Sodhi; 2) 8B-4B, Khewat No. 276/261, Vill. Rampur, Tehsil-Payal, 23 District- Ludhiana in the name of M/s Geoxa Foods (Prop. Sh. Amanpreet Singh Sodhi); 3) Portion of Plot Nos. 47 & 48, Ashoka Park Extension, New Delhi; 4) Part of Property Number 2248, 2249, 2250, 2251, 2252 & 2253 Dr. H.C.Sen Road, Fountain, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. Apart from the above, accused Amanpreet Singh Sodhi had availed a cash credit loan of Rs. 8 crores and another term loan of Rs. 6.50 crores in his firm M/s Geoxa Logistics and company M/s Geoxa Steels Pvt. Ltd.; that for the same the following 5 properties were pledged by him with the Andhra Bank, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana as collaterals: 1) Factory land at Village Kubba, Tehsil Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana – 141418 (one land is 8 kanal and 0 marla and the second is 4 kanal and 18 marla. 2) Plot No. 290A, Sham Singh Road, Near Ghumar Mandi, Village Gahlewal, Ludhiana. 3) 483 Sq. Yards land at Ludhiana; 4) Property No. B-XXXVI-1118 at Guru Amar Dass Nagar, Gali No. 10, Opposite Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Sunet, However some of these properties have been found during investigation to be linked with the proceeds of crime. The accused Amanpreet Singh Sodhi also routed the proceeds of crime into his company M/s Prithvi Infradevelopers P. Ltd. through M/s Heights International and M/s Vision Procon. 24 It was further the case of complainant that M/s Besco International FZE was a UAE based firm and had been routing the proceeds of crime so accumulated in the HSBC account of M/s Colour Wave (HK) Ltd. to the other Indian export firms / companies of accused Gaurav Kirpal. Atul Kumar Garg, Partner of M/s Besco International FZE has admitted to have done the same on the instructions of the accused Gaurav Kirpal. He had further submitted to have repatriated the same on account of the over-valued exports of the firms/companies of the accused Gaurav Kirpal. The further allegation of the complainant was that the accused company M/s Saibhakti Impex Pvt. Ltd. was found to be applicant Indian importer for fraudulent Buyers Credit issued in its name, including the 3 unpaid Buyers Credits/LOUs, of a total amount of USD 1,00,64,965.00, having the overseas supplier M/s Colour Wave (HK) Ltd. as its beneficiary. The complainant further alleged that Ms.Vandana Johar was proprietor of M/s Keshav International as well as major share-holder owner of the company M/s Omkara Worldwide Traders Pvt. Ltd. She had admitted to have given her proprietorship firm M/s Keshav International for use to her brother Gaurav Kirpal; that proprietor was responsible for day-to-day functioning of the said firm. M/s Keshav International was in receipt of proceeds of crime 25 on account of alleged over-valued exports for which the source of funds were routed from Hong Kong based companies of Amanpreet Singh Sodhi; that however Ms. Vandana Johar stated that all the work of the said firm was looked after by her brother Gaurav Kirpal. M/s Omkara Worldwide Traders Pvt. Ltd. was also in receipt of proceeds of crime from Hong Kong based companies, viz. M/s Colour Wave (HK) Ltd. and others, owned/controlled by the accused Amanpreet Singh Sodhi, either directly or by routing of the same through UAE based firms M/s Besco International FZE and M/s Al Dishu Trading FZE. It was further allegation of the complainant that M/s Pioneer Knitting was having one Surinder Kumar Palta as its proprietor, who admitted to have given his proprietorship firm for use to Gaurav Kirpal. M/s Pioneer Knitting was in receipt of proceeds of crime on account of alleged over-valued exports for which the source of funds were from Hong Kong based companies of Amanpreet Singh Sodhi being routed through M/s Al Dishu Trading FZE or M/s Besco International FZE; that however Surinder Kumar Palta had stated that all the work of the said firm was looked after by Gaurav Kirpal. M/s Pioneer Knitting was also found to have given one payment of Rs. 16 lakhs (approx.) to one Dixit Sood of M/s Wealth Creators Reality Services, without any 26 valid trade; that the same was utilized for purchase of property situated at Flat No. 701 on 7th Floor of Block A situated at Societies Plot No. GH 2, Sector 23, Panchkula in the name of the accused Dinesh Kumar. In this manner M/s Pioneer Knitting had assisted in purchase of assets through proceeds of crime. It was also the case of complainant that M/s G B Creative Line was having Ms. Bhawna Kirpal as its proprietor; that she admitted to have given her proprietorship firm for use to Gaurav Kirpal. M/s G.B. Creative Line was in receipt of several proceeds of crime from Gaurav Kirpal and his firm M/s Best Exports as well as his company M/s Saibhakti Impex Pvt. Ltd. for which the source of funds was routed from Hong Kong based companies of Amanpreet Singh Sodhi; that however Ms. Vandana Johar stated that all the work of the said firm was looked after by her husband Gaurav Kirpal. The complainant further alleged that M/s Prenda Creations Pvt. Ltd. was in receipt of various credit entries, which were linked with proceeds of crime, on account of the same having been arranged by the accused Gaurav Kirpal; that infact Gaurav Kirpal admitted that the said company was looked after by him and his family. Funds were arranged in this company by the accused Gaurav Kirpal, which were laundered for providing entries to 27 others, which were not genuine transactions. In particular, funds have been transferred from UCO Bank Account No. 02360510011980 of the accused Gaurav Kirpal to the UCO Bank Account No. 05340210003541 of the company M/s Prenda Creations Private Limited (having his father K.N. Kirpal as one of its Director) which formed the source of funds available with the afore-said company for making two RTGS transfers dated 10.04.2017 and 11.04.2017 of amounts of Rs. 4,34,00,000/- and Rs. 85,75,000/- from the said company to Bank Account No. 13212000000590 of M/s RAP Events, H. No. 127, Sector 10, Panchkula. That statement dated 13.04.2017 of Shri Rakesh Kumar, Partner, M/s RAP Events was recorded, at the time of conduct of searches on 13.04.2017, under Section 17 of the PML Act, 2002 at the business premises of M/s RAP Events; that Shri Rakesh Kumar, Partner, M/s RAP Events admitted to the fact that the afore-said transfer was not backed by any pre-decided trade transaction. The investigation conducted in this matter has revealed that the said transfers were done immediately after conduct of searches on 07.04.2017 by the Directorate of Enforcement in order to evade freezure actions. It was also alleged by the complainant that Brig. (Retd.) M S Dullat was father-in-law of the main accused Ashu Mehra. He 28 had been found to have helped the accused Ashu Mehra in laundering of the proceeds of crime and also in acquiring various properties in India, which were linked with the proceeds of crime. The accused M S Dullat in particular was also found to be opening companies in his names and/or acting on behalf of his son-in-law Ashu Mehra and also in purchase of properties which were linked with the proceeds of crime. The role played by the accused M.S. Dullat in purchase of property situated at H. No. 267, Sector 10A, Chandigarh (measuring 809.09 sq. yards) in the name of the company M/s Global Trade Matrix Pvt. Ltd. and its further transfer in the name of his son-in-law Ashu Mehra (accused) was detailed in complaint. The accused M S Dullat had also been found to have acquired one property, viz. Flat No. 109 (GF), Punjab Housing Board Complex, Sector-79, Mohali for which he was specifically in receipt of an amount of Rs. 18.50 lakhs on 02.03.2015 from one company M/s Prithvi Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., which were linked with the proceeds of crime. The receipt of said amount of Rs. 18.50 lakhs was also duly reflected in the Bank Account statement pertaining to A/c No. 009510011021253 of the accused M S Dullat in Andhra Bank, Sector-17, Chandigarh. The investigation conducted in the said matter had also revealed that the Accused M S Dullat had been acting on behalf of the main accused Ashu Mehra 29 for handling the business of import and setting up of Vapour Recovery Units at various HPCL Depots by one company M/s Mekaster Engineering Ltd. with investments being made out of proceeds of crime. To further clarify the afore-said issued, it was submitted that the one MOU dated 17.06.2013 was signed between Shri V.M. Trehan (First party) and Shri Amanpreet Singh Sodhi & Brig. M.S.Dullat (Second party) wherein envisaging purchase of equity shares of M/s Mekaster Ecosystems Pvt. Ltd. and investments into the projects of the said company by the second party. The said MOU required investments from the second party in the purchase of shares of the company M/s Mekaster Ecosystems Pvt. Ltd. and also commitment/undertaking by second party to arrange for the funds whenever required for the purpose of execution of orders/tenders procured by Mekaster group of companies in respect of vapour recovery units/any other business with mutual consent. That the investigation conducted had revealed that the second party had invested funds of more than Rs. 20 crores in the work related to import of vapour recovery units by Mekaster group of companies and their further installation at the HPCL depots at Kadappa, Bokaro and Paradeep sites. That the accused Ashu Mehra was also instrumental in issuance of one fraudulent Letter of Credit bearing No. 284/IOBNSI/27/13 dated 08.11.2013 in the name 30 of M/s Borsig Membrane Technology, Germany, whereas the accused M S Dullat represented his son-in-law Ashu Mehra in the deal as his representative. The complainant further alleged that the company M/s Goodluck Carbon Pvt. Ltd. was in receipt of proceeds of crime from the accused company M/s Saibhakti Impex Pvt. Ltd.; that the funds with M/s Saibhakti Impex Pvt. Ltd. were out of proceeds of crime being laundered from Hong Kong based companies of accused Amanpreet Singh Sodhi either directly or by routing the same through the 2 UAE based firms M/s Besco International FZE and M/s Al Dishu Trading FZE. It is further case of the complainant that Utkarsh Pahwa was in receipt of proceeds of crime from firms/companies of Gaurav Kirpal, namely M/s Saibhakti Impex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Prenda Creations Pvt. Ltd., which had been routed through M/s Goodluck Carbon Pvt. Ltd. (having his father Rajendra Pahwa as its Director) which was utilized by him (Utkarsh Pahwa) for purchase of property situated at Mustatil No. 53, Kila No. 20 and 21, Revenue Estate, Village Jonapur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. It was also the case of the complainant that accused Leela Kirpal was mother of accused Gaurav Kirpal and had obtained funds, linked with proceeds of crime, from accused Gaurav Kirpal. 31 That besides she could not explain the various cash credits / other credits which were utilized for purchase of property situated Villa No. 14A, Janpath Estate, Canal Road, Ludhiana. 5. On completion of the investigation by Enforcement Directorate in ECIR no.CDZO/06 of 2016, the complaint was filed against the accused for commission of offence u/s 3 read with section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and vide order dated 6.8.2018, the petitioners/accused were summoned to stand their trial for commission of the offence u/s 3 read with section 3 of PMLA, 2002. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Spl. PP for the complainant department and have gone through the case file carefully. 7. Before taking up discussion on the bail applications, it is to be clarified that though Amanpreet Singh Sodhi besides filing applications for bail on behalf of different concernes, also filed bail application claiming himself to be Director of M/s Geoxa Impex Pvt. Ltd being Incharge of the affairs of the said concern, but it is apparent from the case of the complainant that Smt. Sarabjit Kaur w/o Amanpreet Singh Sodhi had been Incharge of the affairs of M/s Geoxa Impex Pvt. Ltd. In this view of the matter, the bail application of Amanpreet Singh Sodhi as Incharge of the said 32 concern is not being considered. 8. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners- accused was that accused Ashu Mehra, Asstt. Manager in Forex Department, Indian Overseas Bank, Chandigarh main branch, had been issuing buyers credits/foreign letters of credit, after fulfilment of the requisite formalities by the concerned parties for a total amount of Rs.800 crores and in most of the cases, the amount had been received by Indian Overseas Bank, but the Enforcement Directorate had taken into account only 14 LOUs through swift messages drawn on Punjab National Bank, Dubai and Bank of Baroda, Bahmas, in which cases the amount had not been repaid and at the most in such an eventuality, it was civil liability of the concerned parties. The further argument was that case had been got registered with CBI initially by the bank authorities in order to pressurize the accused companies/firms and the persons incharge of their affairs by falsely implicating accused Ashu Mehra, Asstt. Manager, Forex Department, Indian Overseas Bank, Chandigarh main branch, by manipulating facts for seeking the refund of the advancement made to the said instrumentalities by coercive method instead of following routine course of enforcing its right of recovery against the said instrumentalities. Another argument was that there were normal business transactions by the different accused 33 companies/firms through their controlling Directors/Partners in the usual course of commercial transactions. It was also the contention that different amounts had been taken by the instrumentalities or the individuals being incharge of its affairs in advancement of their business transactions, but the said amounts were also being considered by the Enforcement Directorate to the proceeds of crime. The further argument was that Enforcement Directorate did not carry out any investigation in respect of companies which were based in foreign countries to whom the advances had been made on the basis of buyers credits/foreign letters of credit issued by Indian Overseas Bank, despite the fact that the case of Enforcement Directorate was that the amount had been initially credited in the account of the said foreign based companies from which the same was further transferred to different accused companies/firms situated in abroad and also in India. Learned counsel then contended that slipshod investigation was taken out by Enforcement Directorate basing its case on the basis of initial case registered by CBI. The common argument of different counsel for the petitioners/accused had been that all assets of the accused companies/firms and that of Directors/Partners being incharge of its affairs had already been identified and seized and so also the immovable properties alleged to have been acquirred by the accused 34 companies/firms or the individuals and also had been got attached by the Enforcement Directorate in the course of investigation of the case in hand and all the accused/petitioners had been appearing before Enforcement Directorate authorities for associating themselves in the course of the investigation and the accused/petitioners were permanent residents of India having their business concerns and properties in India. Learned counsel summed up the argument that it was a fit case for release of the accused/petitioners on anticipatory bail, as the investigation was already complete and the complaint had already been filed in the court and the accused/petitioners were prepared to face the trial which was likely to take very long period keeping in view the number of documents and number of witnesses to be examined in the course of the trial and the detention of the accused/petitioners in custody during trial therefore was not necessary. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed on Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India & Anr. 2017 AIR (SC) 5500, Sameer M. Bhujbal vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and anr., 903- BA-286-2018 decided on 6 th June 2018 (Bombay High Court), Dalip Singh Mann and another vs. Niranjan Singh, Assistant Director, Director of Enforcement, Govt. of India, CRM No.M- 28490 of 2015 decided on 1.10.2015, P&H (DB) and Arun 35 Sharma vs. Union of India and Others 2016(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 883, P&H (DB). 9. On the other hand, the argument of learned Spl. PP for Enforcement Directorate was that keeping in view the magnitude of fraud and the manner of crime in which the credit initially advanced to the foreign companies had been diverted into the account of different accused companies/firms or the individual account for facilitating the commission of the offence of the case in hand and it was also a case of trade-based money laundering, in which the documents were prepared by inflating the norms of the transactions or preparing fake documents in the process of diversion of the proceeds of the crime and in some cases, the proceeds of crime had been shown to have been invested in the business, with the sole object of misappropriating the amount and therefore it was not a fit case for release of the accused/petitioners on bail. In support of the argument, reliance was placed on Gautam Kundu vs. Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, Directorate of Enforcement 2015(6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 622, Union of India vs. Varinder Singh @ Raja & anr. 2017(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 821 and Pragya Singh vs. State of Maharashtra 2017(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 439 Bombay High Court (DB). 10. I have anxiously considered rival contentions of learned 36 counsel for the petitioners-accused, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the Enforcement Directorate and have carefully gone through the record. 11. It is well settled that threadbare discussion on the merits of the case is not desirable at the stage of deciding the applications of the petitioners/accused for anticipatory bail as it will have reflection on the merits of the case. 12. On behalf of Enforcement Directorate, the main argument was that petitioners/accused were required to fulfil twin mandatory conditions of section 45 of the Act for seeking their release on bail, which they failed to do in the case in hand. The further argument was that though the said provisions of section 45 of the act had been declared unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Apex court, but subsequently section 45 of the Act had been amended w.e.f. 29.3.2018 and the amendment being in relation to procedural matter would operate with retrospective effect and would be applicable in the case in hand. In support of which reliance was placed upon Pragya Singh vs. State of Maharashtra's case (supra). On the other hand, on behalf of the petitioners/accused, the said argument of learned Spl. PP had been controverted by placing reliance on the authority of Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India's case (supra) that the said twin mandatory conditions of 37 section 45 of the Act had already been declared unconstitutional and even the subsequent amendment in the provisions of section 45 of the Act would be of no help to the Enforcement Directorate in the case in hand and reliance in this behalf was placed upon the authority of Sameer M. Bhujbal vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and anr.'s case (supra). 13. It will not be out of place to reproduce the said conditions of section 45(1) of the Act as under:- “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence (under this Act) 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”. 14. In Gautam Kundu vs. Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, Directorate of Enforcement's case (supra) and Union of India vs. Varinder Singh @ Raja & anr.'s case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that both 38 the conditions of Cr.P.C and section 45 of the Act were required to be satisfied for grant of bail to the person accused of the offences punishable u/s 3 & 4 of PMLA, 2002. However, subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India & Anr.'s case (supra) has held that, “we declare section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in so far as it imposes two further conditions for releasing on bail as unconstitutional as it violates articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India”. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Barshi Municipal Council, Barshi, District Solapur vs. The Lokmanya Mills Limited, Barshi and another 1972(2) SCC 857 that, “when the Rule was struck down by this Court, the effect was Rule could never be deemed to have been passed. The Validating Act has also not revived or resurrected the Rule 2(c) therein and therefore the position was that there was no charging provision for imposition of house tax on the Mills, Factories or Buildings connected therein”. 16. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Sameer M. Bhujbal vs. Assistant Director's case (supra) was pleased to hold that, “after effecting amendment to Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act the words “under this Act” are added to Sub Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA Act. However, the original Section 45(1)(ii) has not 39 been revived or resurrected by the said Amending Act. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Additional Solicitor General of India are not disputing about the said fact situation and in fact have conceded to the same. It is further to be noted here that, even Notification dated 29.3.2018 thereby amending Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act which came into effect from 19.4.2018 is silent about its retrospective applicability. In view thereof, the contention addvanced by the learned A.S.G. cannot be accepted. It is to be further noted here that, the original Sub-section 45(10(ii) has therefore neither revived nor resurrected by the Amending Act and therefore, as of today there is no rigor of said two further conditions under original Section 45(1) (ii) of PMLA Act for releasing the accused on bail under the said Act. In view of the above, when there is no bar of twin conditions contained in original Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA Act, the present application has to be considered and decided under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with or without conditions”. 17. Thus, in view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, the earlier existing twin mandatory conditions of section 45(1) of the Act as noticed above are not applicable as of 40 now for deciding the present bail application. 18. Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh in Dalip Singh Mann and another vs. Niranjan Singh, Assistant Director, Director of Enforcement, Govt. of India's case (supra) while deciding the bail application in a complaint case instituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was pleased to hold that, “rigors of Section 45(1)(ii) of the act would be attracted only while considering the bail plea of an accused who had been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate u/s 19 of the Act and not in case of anticipatory bail”, and the said authority was subsequently relied upon in Arun Sharma vs. Union of India and others' case (supra) by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court for holding that rigors of section 45(1)(ii) of the Act would be attracted only while considering the bail plea of the accused who had been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate u/s 19 of the Act” and not applicable in case of pre- arrest bail. 19. There is, however, no dispute between the parties that assets of the accused companies/firms or the individuals and the immovable properties allegedly acquired by them had been identified and the Enforcement Directorate had seized the assets and attached the immovable properties during investigation and the 41 petitioners/accused had been associating the Enforcement Directorate by joining long drawn investigation and at no point of time during investigation, the Enforcement Directorate considered it necessary that arrest of any of the accused was required. Consequent upon completion of the investigation, complaint had already been presented in the court and the petitioners/accused who had been summoned to stand their trial are prepared to face the trial. Moreover, the trial of the case is likely to take considerable time keeping in view the large number of witnesses to be examined and numerous documents are to be proved and in these circumstances, I find it a fit case in which concession of anticipatory bail can be extended and I accordingly direct that accused/petitioners of anticipatory bail applications no.1119 of 2018, no.1149 of 2018, no.1150 of 2018, no.1188 of 2018, no.1189 of 2018, no.1190 of 2018, no.1195 of 2018, no.1196 of 2018, no.1197 of 2018, no.1198 of 2018, no. 1199 of 2018, no.1200 of 2018, no. 1201 of 2018, no.1202 of 2018 and no.1266 of 2018 and bail application no.1210 of 2018 in respect of petitioners no.1 to 5 and 7 be released on antcipatory bail subject to furnishing bail in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount each and that the petitioners shall appear before the court regularly on each date of hearing and shall not leave country without prior permission of the 42 court and shall not try to overreach the prosecution witnesses. 20. However, nothing contained herein shall have any bearing on the merits of main case. Pronounced :- Balbir Singh, 29.9.2018. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. UID No.PB0021. Shiv Kumar 43 2018-10-01T10:44:52+0000 SHIV KUMAR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Similar Cases

Frequently Asked Questions

The Petitioner in case M/S Saibhakti Impex Pvt Ltd. vs Assistant Director (Pmla) is M/S Saibhakti Impex Pvt Ltd. and 5 more.

The Respondent in case M/S Saibhakti Impex Pvt Ltd. vs Assistant Director (Pmla) is Assistant Director (Pmla).

The case against Assistant Director (Pmla)was filed on 05-09-2018 by M/S Saibhakti Impex Pvt Ltd..

The status of case M/S Saibhakti Impex Pvt Ltd. against Assistant Director (Pmla) is Case Disposed.