Manoj Kumar Babulal Punamiya vs State of Jharkhand

R.R. Prasad

Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement.

This application has been filed for grant of bail in connection with complaint case arising out of ECIR/02/PAT/09/AD (suppl.) lodged against the petitioner for commission of the offence u/s 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which is punishable u/s 4 of the said Act.

It appears that on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Rajiv Sharma, Vigilance P.S case no. 9 of 2009 was registered under Sections 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against Madhu Koda, Ex-Chief Minister of Jharkhand and three Ex-Ministers. Subsequently, C.B.I under the order of this Court took up the investigation and registered a case as R.C. No. 58 of 2009. After investigation of the case, C.B.I submitted charge sheet against Madhu Koda, Binod Kumar Sinha, Sanjay Choudhary u/s 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 9 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 putting charges that the then Chief Minister who was also Mines Minister on being influenced by the co-accused granted mining lease by abusing his official position to M/s. Coal Industries Private Limited and received illegal gratification. At the same time, Enforcement Directorate also lodged Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) no. 2 of 2009 under Sections 420, 423, 424 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7, 10 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against nine persons, who had been made accused by the C.B.I but not against this petitioner. Subsequently, in the aforesaid ECIR case, a complaint was lodged against this petitioner u/s 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act stating therein that it does transpire from the investigation done so far that Binod Kumar Sinha, Bikash Sinha, Sanjay Choudhary and Dhananjay Choudhary played a pivotal role not only in collecting ill-gotten money on behalf of Madhu Koda but also in making investment of the money so received for the purpose of money laundering.

Further it has been alleged that number of companies/firms owned and controlled by the accused persons including the petitioner or their associate companies had entered into large number of financial transaction in projecting the ill-gotten money as genuine and this petitioner played a major role in investment of ill-gotten money to the extent of Rs. 58.69 crores, details of which have been given in the complaint. Thus, it has been alleged that the petitioner did commit offence of money laundering as defined u/s 3 of the Act which is punishable u/s 4 of the Act.

Mr. Sinha, learned Sr.counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a billion merchant having proprietorship firm in the name and style of M/s. Silver Coin. The turnover of the said firm from the financial year 1995-96 to 2004-05 was more than 79 crores and that the petitioner is the director/proprietor of as many as 22 companies including M/s. Balajee Universal Tradelink Private Limited and M/s. Balajee Lifestyle Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and does have credit limit facilities by various banks to the extent of Rs. 150 crores.

It was further submitted that since investments were made by Binod Kumar Sinha and Sanjay Choudhary in the petitioner''s company, the petitioner has also made accused as it is said that ill- gotten money was invested but the allegation is misconceived as the payments for selling/transferring shares of M/s. Balajee Bullions and Commodities Pvt. Ltd. in their favour have been received in cheques and that the shares have been issued after due compliance of the rules and regulations of the SEBI and ROC. That apart, other allegations are also there but all are misconceived still on such allegations complaint has been lodged but without establishing that the transactions which were made had been made out of the amount received from the proceeds of crime. Moreover, the Enforcement Directorate has never proceeded with attachment of the properties claimed to have been acquired through the ill-gotten money/proceeds of crime and as such, the complaint case itself is not maintainable.

Learned counsel further submitted that since the investigation is complete and that the petitioner has been cooperating with the Enforcement Directorates since very beginning, he needs to be admitted on bail as he has been in custody since last 18 months, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, wherein their Lordships after taking notice of several earlier decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court have been pleased to laid down that in a case where charge sheet has been submitted and where nothing is there to show that the petitioner would interfere with the trial or tamper with the evidence, the accused should be released on bail even if accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude.

Learned counsel further submitted that whenever presence of the petitioner was required during investigation, the petitioner made himself present before the authority for interrogation and under this situation, the petitioner deserves to be admitted on bail.

As against this, Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submitted that during investigation it got transpired that proceeds of crime has changed hands not only through 3 a particular person but also through companies and firms both in India and outside India and the petitioner along with other accused had involved themselves in handling ill-gotten money in India and outside India with a view to give it colour of untainted money which has been found to the extent of Rs. 58.69 crores.

It was further submitted that though the charge sheet has been submitted but the investigation is still going on in India and in other countries, such as, Dubai, Thailand, Indonesia and Liberia and that at the instance of the Enforcement Directorate, letters of request have been issued by the Special Court but they are pending execution and therefore, possibilities of filing further complaint against the petitioner cannot be ruled out as there is every possibility of fresh evidence being collected in course of ongoing investigation.

It was further pointed out that the petitioner had managed to visit foreign countries thrice while look out circular was in operation for prohibiting him to visit foreign countries and that some of the co-accused who are close associates of the petitioner are still absconding and therefore, in this situation, possibility of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out.

It was further submitted that when the petitioner failed to make response to the summons, the Investigating Officer got warrant of arrest issued and then look out circular was issued against the petitioner so as to restrict movement to the petitioner to foreign countries and to prevent him from hammering and tampering of evidence of the offences and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be admitted on bail under the aforesaid circumstances and also in the circumstance that the prayer for bail of Bikash Kumar Sinha, Bijay Joshi, Arvind Vyas and Anosh Ekka has already been rejected and moreover, prayer for bail of Bikash Kumar Sinha has recently been rejected by the Hon''ble Supreme Court vide order passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No. 4639 of 2011.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it be recorded that the petitioner has been made accused on finding by the Enforcement Directorate that the petitioner did handle proceeds of crime to the extent of Rs. 58.69 crores. In the said case, though charge sheet has been submitted but as per the statement made on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate, investigation is still going on not only in India but also in other countries, such as Dubai, Thailand, Indonesia and Liberia and the letters of request which have been issued are pending its execution. In this situation, according to the learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, collection of further evidences cannot be ruled out.

Thus, the circumstance, under which bail was granted to the appellant in the cases, referred to above, are not similar wherein accused charged with economic offences of huge magnitude were granted bail as after submission of the charge sheet, their presence in the custody was not required for further investigation but here, in the instant case as disclosed above, further investigation is still going on. It has also come that the petitioner had left for abroad in spite of issuance of look out circular and that in similar situation, prayer for bail of the accused Bikash Kumar Sinha has been rejected by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and hence, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.