Vishal Kumar Sinha vs Union Of India

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Vijay Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the opposite party-ED.

The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with ECIR Case No.03/2022 in ECIR/RNSZO/08/2018, dated 29.10.2018, registered for the offence under Section 45 of the PMLA and cognizance under Section 3 read with 4 of PMLA has been taken against the petitioner, pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, CBI cum Special Judge under PMLA at Ranchi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted regular bail in the predicate offence by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2019. He further submits that the ED has taken over the investigation of the case. The petitioner is not proprietor and he joined M/s DJN Commodity on salary basis on the post of Director. He submits that the petitioner is ready to fulfil any condition put by this Court and considering that he has been granted regular bail in the predicate offence, he may be granted on anticipatory bail in the present case. He also submits that identical are the issues before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dalip Singh Mann and another v. Niranjan Singh, Assistant Director, Director of Enforcement, Govt. of India and considering that the petitioners of that case were granted interim bail in the predicate offence, the interim order was made absolute. He also relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anamika Nandi v. Directorate of Enforcement in Criminal Appeal No.1529/2022 and submits that anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner of that case with regard to the case arising out of PMLA. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may be granted the benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

On the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the opposite party-ED draws attention of the Court to the complaint and submits that in para 3.5, it has come that the accused persons had assured investors that their accounts would be opened with MCX (Multi Commodity Exchange) and trading would be done in their name, but the accused persons dishonestly and fraudulently did not register investors with MCX Exchange and diverted the money collected from investors for their own use. He further submits that the petitioner in connivance with Late Jeetendra Mohan Sinha and Prashant Kumar opened a firm in the name and style of M/s Divya Jyoti Securities, Belwatika, Medininagar, Palamu, Jharkhand and during the year 2011-12, M/s Divya Jyoti Securities obtained a franchisee of M/s UNICON Securities Pvt. Ltd. for trading in equity. They in connivance with Ivaturi Santosh, Vivek Sinha and Anand Mohan Sinha, instead of carrying on the business of trading in equity and commodities, dishonestly collected money from the complainants/victims with the promise of 3-4% guaranteed profit per month by way of trading on their behalf. He also submits that the property of the accused person has come in para 3.16 of the complaint. He further submits that recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others; (2022 SCC OnLine SC 929) has considered anticipatory bail with regard to PMLA in paragraph 401 and finding has been recorded in paragraph 408, which is quoted herein below:

“408.Thus, anticipatory bail is nothing but a bail granted in anticipation of arrest, hence, it has been held in various judgments by this Court that the principles governing the grant of bail in both cases are more or less on the same footing, except that in case of anticipatory bail the investigation is still underway requiring the presence of the accused before investigation authority. Thus, ordinarily, anticipatory bail is granted in exceptional cases where the accused has been falsely implicated in an offence with a view to harass and humiliate him. Therefore, it would not be logical to disregard the limitations imposed on granting bail under Section 45 of the 2002 Act, in the case of anticipatory bail as well.”

On these grounds, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party-ED submits that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that the money laundering amount alleged to be Rs.141,47,59,798/- and proceeds of crime has also been enjoyed by the petitioner. The petitioner was proprietor of M/s DJN Commodity and M/s Divya Jyoti Securities. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not accepted by this Court looking into para 3.10 of the complaint with regard to employment on the post of Director of the said company on salary basis. Thus, there are materials against the petitioner. So far as the order relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Dalip Singh Mann (supra) that was the order of the year 2015 and the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) has been delivered recently in the year 2022. Thus, that judgment is also not helping the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioners of that case were father-in-law and mother-in-law of Jagdish Singh @ Bhola, who was alleged to be the kingpin of drug mafia and considering this aspect of the matter, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners by Punjab and Haryana High Court. The facts of the present case are otherwise not helping the petitioner. In Anamika Nandi (supra) considering that the petitioner of that case was lady and that case had come under the proviso of Section 45 of PMLA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner of that case. Thus, these orders are not helping the petitioner.

In view of the above facts and in light of direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) particularly in paragraph 408 and considering that Section 45 of PMLA are not fulfilled by the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.