Sh. Ashish Malik v. The State Of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECENIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO:11007 OF 2022 Between:

Sh. Ashish Malik, S/o Satyanarayana Malik, Aged about 37 years, Occ Business, R/o. RZE 672-22, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, South West Delhi. ..,PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor, Directorate of Enforcement Assistant director, Hyderabad Zonal Office, 5-10-174, 3rd floor, Shakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner / Accused on Regular Bail in Crime F.No. ECIR/HYZOI1 512020 on the file of Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad Zonal Office.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri RETTALA BALRAJ GOUD, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

The Court made the following: ORDER

HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATTA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11OO7 of2022 ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 439 Cr.p.C., is filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.5 in ECIR.No. IS/HYZO l2O2O of Hyderabad zone, seeking for post-arrest bail.

2.

Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate who represented the Respondent. 3.

The matrix of the case as could be perceived through the contents of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is that the 2"d accused, by name Sirimalla Nagaraju, motivated the de /acto complainant and other victims to invest money in Rosneft Hedge Fund by stating that he is one of the Associates of the said company and assured that the invested amount would get doubled in 1g weeks. He also informed that Rosneft Hedge Fund belongs to a Russian based company and that the petitioner and others are running Rosneft Hedge Fund. After three months, Rosneft Hedge Fund started functioning with other name viz. EURESCOIN.NET. When the investors requesteq !g

Dr.CSl-J crl.P.No.11007 ol 2022 return their money, Accused No'2-Sirimalla Nagaraju' asked them to reinvest the amount and that it would fetch 2007o returns. After collecting reinvested amount, Accused No.2-Sirimalla Nagaraju escaped with f,rfty two crores and cheated many people. Accused No. l-Sandeep Kaushik and Singh Chouhan a-re residing in Accused No.4-Sunil With the money collected, properties Armenia and Georgia.

foreign countries. A11 the accused were purchased 1n money in a wrongful and deceitful diverted the Public manner.

4.

Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that initially, a case was registered in the year 2O 18 and the petitioner was arrested' Leamed counsel submitted that for the purpose of interrogation' police custody was sought by the investigating agency and accordingly, police custody was given for seven days and the petitioner was thoroughly interrogated' Learned counsel also submitted that subsequently' the Enforcement Directorate registered the present case and the petitioner is in judicial custody since .1 15 days' Learned counsel also submitted that till now,

DT.CSL,J Crl,P,No.11007 of2022 proceeds could not be traced and in these circumstances, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5.

Vehemently opposing the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate submitted that totally, six cases were registered against the petitioner and other accused and indeed, by starting a multilevel scheme, by creating fake websites and with the help of a shell company, crores of rupees were etnbezzled and the case is i still under investigation and therefore, the petitioner is not I I entitled for bail.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate also submitted that the petitioner, along with his accomplices, had run MLM schemes and thereby cheated people to a large extent. Learned Standing Counsel also stated that the petitioner and other accused siphoned off money of the investors and in that regard, multiple complaints were given and multiple cases were registered against the petitioner and his accomplices.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate further made a submission that there is,direct

D.,CSL,t C .P,Nor170O7 of 2022 proof to show that amounts were transferred to the account of the petitioner. Learned Stalding Counsel also stated that the petitioner, along with other accused, organized grand seminars and in those seminars, the petitioner and other accused gave wide publicity about their fake investment plans and promised huge returns. Learned Standing Counsel further stated that as the investigation is still pending, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

B. It is incumbent on part of this Court to take note of the provisions regarding bails as laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure ald also the mandate of law as enunciated under Section 45 of the prevention of Money Laundering Act 2OO2. As per the said provision, no person accused of an offence under the said Act shall be released on bail unless the Public prosecutor had been given an opportunity of hearing and when the public prosecutor opposes the relief claimed, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likelv to commit any offence while on bail.

Dt,CSL,J Crl.P.No.11007 ol2022 9.

In the case on hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate clearly projected prtma facie involvement of tJle petitioner in the acts of Money Laundering. That apart, submission is also made that the investigation is still pending.

10. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it would be wholly undesirable to enlarge the petitioner on bail as prayed for.

1 1. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

SdI K. AMMAJI ASSrsrANreF#IxAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Metropolitan Sessions. Judge_Cum_special Court Constituted under ;;:t#;t l"

or the prevention oiMor"v r-r,,nauri,is;. t, 2022 atNampary,

2. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad

3. One CC to SRl. ANIL 'RASAD TlWARl, Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate, High Court of Tetangana, nvi"Jrl'ilul

4. Copy to Special public prosecutor Director of Enfor Hyderabad zonar om"e, s -10-114, s" Ftoor;r#:H"rff]E:li9ffi"i] Hyderabad-500004. [OUT]

5. Two CD Spare Copies \v VH

HIGH COURT CSL, J DATED: 3011212022 (os -f HE sT4 /{i (t)(i J '52 B lAlr 2023

ORDER

'r,<;.i) !

CRLP.No.11007 of 2022 The Criminal Petition is Dismissed @q( -$\t'