High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/4648/2023dismissed

Mahendra Agarwal And ORS v. State Of Punjab

2024-05-15Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari17 pages

!"#"$ % & '( )* +

+ ,-+

+ % .* / + 0* )

$$$ 0* ) ( / 1*2

& !!! !

(# ! !!

)* (

! +,- ) ) !

"." . "

/ 0 1 2)'

(34 !

(# 5/6 7%7 %+ %7 7877 +78+9:+99+9;+9-+;% /)

< !

+ +

=#> !5/ #( ! %+ %7 7877

! < !

#(?@ ? "&"1 A4< !

)! ( (

( !5/ @ '

!"#$" " % & #$'"(!)*

+ "" % ' ( + & *, "*# -"* * " .* / 0

+ / +1 $ / "*# " 23

* "*# 2 , *2

*)22 " 4 $$) 5

-) ' ( +

*, " ),* 6+-"' ' 7 4 *

8 59

: :

/* 4 *), *

!$) 8 9 *!" / *"") * 1 *,

$ *** ) "

* "5

*,"1 "*,"***

) 4 $

*!* 8 1 6*), $"*

) $, *,

))"))$

* $,*, "+- .(;+- 23

21 " ' , , *, " *)) ")) * *! $,

$<<)"))))1 =), *, *

*) *, )" ) ) "" $ " "$

$ *! &$, )$"

>)), ))")$" "

*** $<<) ", "$

!) "*;'0 + ++ + * +

+ +

= # '

(# !

!5/ # # ! B # )'

%BB9 # ) )!

( :

6 ! '

) # @

( !) )!

( '

! > ( # ! / "

(# !

( ! > !( # :

% ) (! > )

#DD

( #

( #DD (

= !#( '

) %- 8B 788B#(! %8 ,14 ) '

) )!

(

) )!

( = >(##!

# ! # > '

( (

> / / (

## (

#() )'

( ;

) #

# !? '

' # > ! '

* !!

(

> /'

/ ( -

)

!5/# ! '

* !) # > '

! ##(!

) )!

( !5/ # @! !) )!

(

+ ++ + * + +*

0 # / ! < !

(!! !

(# ! !

14 +% ) ) %:

8% 787,!

!! #

#@# )" <

# !5/ '

! /

= 1 2 / = 347;

8787,# 14 1"4< !

14"

14< !

E 14 <

! ! (

/ = #! 7% 8, 787+ ! ! ! ) '

? # # ! #( # '

/ (!!

! !

# !# 14 !

= 14

! (

+ + + ++

+ %8

=) ( @(@

# ! ! ( ) # ( #

14 '

=! (

#( ! !'

) 1@ 74 ?'

1@ ,4

=!!

! #

()'

( ! / "

? %,

!, %14 ? )'

* !14 # !

E14 !!

( E14 ( !E ! , %1 4 .

/ "

>!14 #( @ ) E14 E14 !

( !

) E , % ? ! '

?9 / " -)) * 5 8 @ )) !$) * # ;(1 ))* ! *, )

))! ", ) *"# + A,- *"B " 8 , ! ! "))**)," *

8 $, 5'(+ " -)) * 5 8 @ )) " )) $, "

0!6"))71 /, * $ *!"

56$ C %+

, , ? ! > # !'

@ '

?9 9 D ) 9 9 2 /8 +-)) "8

***")) !, *)),!+-"E+-"E 6 )2 *)!6$ "*, " *****), 6$ *," ,( )) *,$)$,

1 $ ))* )! "#0 )

* $, ,"

*,)! $# ", " ;(@ FA 8* ) ; ))

* $, ), FA ", $# )*"";

( G$ )" 252 "))$),H1 / )*"** - FA8*) ;))*

""," B *!

"8 +-

* *!"

@ A),***!"($6

!*, I *, "($6! 1 "

,*, *,$)$, '(+" $)"" '(+*

" $,'(+ *,$)$,

) *, " 0! ")) 71 ,!4";

+) "

/*" )9 9 2

*, ;, +-" ) $*),*! $, 8 +- *"7 0*! ) ,*" ," , 9 9

= ,, *)"

'"/= /" /*,"

)) "8 ))$*

** ) ")) @ )) *,$)$,

1 $ )) ($6!*,1 ,*, *,$)$, '(+" $)"" '(+*

" $,'(+ *,$)$,

) /) *,

"0!"))71

)) FA8*1 ,*,4 $ 1 "

+)", "

C '/

3456

!96 :

/// :

5# 8#"

#4;

#/</ !99 # "$

#!93

!!4$ / 1;8:

#"# #48 85"

( # ?'

> ! ()'

(.!@ #

( #

# ( '

# > =? > !'

/ "

> %;

# # # (!

!# # ( !

(

> / / ( < ! ?

# '

9 + ! ! ! . / "

2 /))"))" "")

"*"

")! $,"7 $)

'(+) )$,)

"* *!"

)

/,$,) 3 ,* 8 +- '(+ 7 0*! ** 8 +-*!

8 +-*$)7 0*

! '(+ ", 7 0*!""" * 8

8 $)

8 +- C %-

( !! '

# . / "

!( !! ) #( #

! @

> <"5)

> #( ! 14 6( '

! !

(

> / / = #'

!) !

(

1 ! 4 # #! = @ #( ) #

77 8, 787+! '

"......Upon this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was an internal arrangement and the current account (supra)

was opened with the oral consent of the officials concerned. He has further submitted that whatever amount was deposited in the current account (supra) got automatically rerouted in the Escrow account maintained at S.B.I., Branch: Indore.

3. At this stage, the officer (supra) has submitted that the investigating agency needs some time to verify whether any oral permission, thereby authorizing the petitioners to open the current account (supra) for depositing therein the collections concerned, was in fact given or not by the department concerned. The investigating agency is also required to investigate whether the amount deposited in the current account (supra) has been withdrawn, or, the entire the amount has been deposited or rerouted in toto in the Escrow account maintained at S.B.I., Branch: Indore. Lastly, he has submitted that the reasons, which led to closure of the Escrow account (supra), are also be investigated."

/ # ! ! ( ## )

(#( ! # ( # # ) ='

( !

. / "

(

( ##(

#(! ! ( ! #(! '

!! # '

= #

! !

#DD'

! 6 B%:8788%,B-:+;9@

< !

) )!

( 78%:( '

! =

# #(!

) 6 :8788787:,8BB:7 <"5)

< !

) )!

(

(78%:)'

( # #

> #( # '

/ ( 7+ %7 7878 )'

(!7878 ! '

= ! (

! =#! @ !

!%+ !(1 ! 4

# ##(!.) )'

(

?2 /"* $ )) ")) "

"$ F" $$ $,A5 ( )'" 7 " +-F .(;+-8 2 ('75.652 :

( 23

238

*""A, 23

('75.65232 ( 29 238

*""J 23 9 ('75.652

( K

2 8

*""J 23

('75.652 K (

2 8

*""A, 2 3 ('75.652

( K 2 8

*""J), 2

('75.652

( :

2 8

*"" 2 ('75.652:3 ( 9 28

*"";$, 2 K ('75.652:

(

*""A 2 : ('75.65

( :

*""A, 2 2 ('75.65 K ( :

*"" 2 22 ('75.65 K ( 2 28

*""6* 2 ('75.65 ( 2 28

*""$ 2 C 7%

( # # ##(!.

) )!

( ! ! . / "

#(!'

= !

!6 9 !(1 ! 4 # )'

( >> ( < !

'= 0 ( # 8:

8, 78%7 #8:

8, 78%- # %9 87877 ) )!

(

!=) ! '

( > >#( ) )!

(# ( #

! D %+9 ,+ > (> #@ !%9 87877 #@ / (

%9B8B8888.' # ) )'

(.! @ (

= ! !#(!'

!! ( > ! >

D !.) )!

(

! ! 5/ # ! <) (

!( #

) # %+ %7 7877 = %+ %7 7877 @'

!( )

( #() = '

5 1 ! 4) *" !.) )!

( '

!@*

# ( # ! ! 6( #(!.) )!

( (7878 !

! . / "

") # @ !

5 !!(1 ! 4! @

!* !

26.

Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as "P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement", (2019) 9 SCC 24, while dealing with economic offences, has held that the power of anticipatory bail should be sparingly exercised in economic offences. The relevant extract of this judgment is reproduced under:- "77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p.386, para 19) "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.

Economic Offences

78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. XXX XXX XXX

83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the

materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

84. In a case of money-laundering where it involves many stages of "placement", "layering i.e. funds moved to other institutions to conceal origin" and "interrogation i.e. funds used to acquire various assets", it requires systematic and analysed investigation which would be of great advantage. As held in Anil Sharma, success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by a pre-arrest bail order. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. In the case in hand, there are allegations of laundering the proceeds of the crime. The Enforcement Directorate claims to have certain specific inputs from various sources, including overseas banks. Letter rogatory is also said to have been issued and some response have been received by the Department.

Having regard to the nature of allegations and the stage of the investigation, in our view, the investigating agency has to be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation. Though we do not endorse the approach of the learned Single Judge in extracting the note produced by the Enforcement Directorate, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant will hamper the investigation and this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.

* 7;

* #this Court is not inclined to grant the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. In summa, the instant petition is dismissed.

10* ) & '(

="$6 ):

>"$?-9

#$ % #-

% #-