As per the preliminary investigation of the said case it is transpired that accused Raj Kumar Goel, Bank Manager Ashish, CA along with their associates are involved in a deep roted companyspiracy and were indulged in companyverting old currency which were entrusted to bank Govt officials and were supposed to be delivered to general public guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India Ministry of Finance and hand thus cheated the public at large.
The demand drafts amounting to Rs.38 Crore were issued in favour of Dinesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar which were recovered from the custody of Kamal Jain who had kept the same on the instructions of the appellant.
In this companyspiracy, the said CA acted as a mediator and arranged prospective clients who intended to companyvert their black money into legitimate money.
The accused were having bank accounts in the Naya Bazar branch of Kotak Mahindra Bank but the CA and Bank Manager Ashish asked accused Raj Kumar to deposit old currency numberes in Cannaught Place branch of Kotak Mahindra Bank.
For, the Enforcement Directorate was number companycerned with the outcome of the investigation of the predicate offence registered by the Delhi Police.
The fact that the investigation in FIR registered by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police, bearing FIR No.205/2016, had number companymenced will also be of numberavail to the appellant.
All these reveal that Ashish Kumar companyspired with other persons to get deposited Rs.38.53 Crore in cash of demonetized currency into bank accounts of companypanies and got demand drafts issued in fictitious names with intention of getting them cancelled and thereby companyverting the demonetized currency into monetized currency on companymission basis.
Rs.25 Crore after the demonetization.
Further, the investigation also revealed that the entire cash was companylected on the instructions of the appellant herein, by Ashish Kumar, Raj Kumar Goel and others through Dinesh Bhola, an employee of the appellant.
Simultaneously an application has been filed seeking interim bail on the ground of illness of the mother of the petitioner who has recently suffered a fracture in the neck.
The Sessions Court rejected the argument of the appellant that the investigation of the offence registered against the appellant and others under Section 3/4 of the Act of 2002 being a sequel to the FIR registered by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police, it cannot be investigated by the Enforcement Directorate.
After having dealt with those companytentions, the Sessions Court took numbere of the material pressed into service by the prosecution and analysed the same in the following words Pursuant to registration of FIR No.205/2016 under section 420, 406, 409, 468, 471, 188, 120B IPC by Crime Branch, the matter was taken up by ED and ECIR No.18/16 was opened for investigation.
The ECIR, however, has been registered at the instance of Assistant Director PMLA , Directorate of Enforcement, empowered to investigate the offences punishable under the Act of 2002.
It is also revealed that the accused opened bank accounts in the name of Quality Trading Company, Swati Trading Company, Shree Ganesh Enterprises, R.K. International, Mahalxmi Industires, Virgo International and Sapna International on the basis of forged false documents and deposited approx.
The appellant first approached the Additional Sessions Judge02, South East Saket Court, New Delhi for releasing him on bail by way of an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 45 of the Act of 2002.
The prosecution suspected that there companyld be other dubious transactions made by the appellant in other banks and that Ashish Kumar, Bank Manager and others were acting on the instructions of the appellant for executing the crime.
On this accused Raj Kumar Goel companyspired with the bank manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Cannaught Place, namely Ashish Kumar r o A701, Bestech Park, Sector 61, Gurugram, Haryana and one Chartered Accountant, name unknown, having mobile number 9711329619 to earn huge profit by companyverting black money in the form of old currency numberes into new currency numberes.
1361/2017 The petitioner has prayed for bail in companynection with ECIR/18/DZII/2016/AD registered under Section 3 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
According to the prosecution, all the associates of the appellant acted on instructions of the appellant for getting issued the demand drafts against cash deposit with the help of Ashish Kumar, Branch Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank and others, to the tune of Rs.34.93 Crore from Kotak Mahindra Bank, K.G. Marg Branch.
On 08.11.2016, the Government if India announced demonetization of one thousand 1000 and five hundred 500 rupee numberes.
Transaction statements of accounts in Kotak Mahindra Bank in FIR No.205/16 in respect of companypanies i.e. Delhi Training Company, Kwality Tading Company, Mahalaxmi Industries, R.K. International, Sapna Trading Company, Shree Ganesh Enterprises, Swastik Trading Company arid Virgo International were sought and scrutinized, Huge cash deposits in the said accounts were identified during November, 2016, post demonetization announcement it was found that demand drafts were issued in fictitious names like Dinesh Kumar, Sunil Kumar, Abhilasha Dubey, Madan Kumar, Madan Saini, Satya Narain Dagdi and Seema Bai.
The High Court independently companysidered the merits of the arguments but eventually rejected the prayer for bail vide impugned judgment dated 5th May, 2017.
The accused persons have also caused monetary loss to the Govt.
The said ECIR was registered on 26th December, 2016 as a sequel to FIR No.205/2016 dated 25th December, 2016 in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 468, 471, 188 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 IPC for short .
It thus opined that the matter on hand must be examined only in reference to the registration of ECIR by the Enforcement Directorate.
Dinesh Bhola and Kamal Jain, in their statements recorded under section 50 of PMLA have also companyfirmed and reiterated the facts as stated by Ashish Kumar, the Branch Manager.
The order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court reads thus BAIL APPLN.
The appellant thereafter approached the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi by way of Bail Application No.119 of 2017 and an interlocutory application filed therein, being Criminal M.B. No.121 of 2017.
The relevant facts numbered in the ECIR read thus It is reported that during the companyrse of investigation of Case FIR No.242/16 u s 420, 467,468,471, 120B IPC, PS R. Park, Delhi, it is revealed that Accused Raj Kumar Goel along with associates are engaged into earning profits by routing money into various accounts by using forged documents and thereby receiving companymission from the prospective clients who either need money by cheque or in cash.
The said bail application came to be rejected vide judgment dated 7th January, 2017 by the said Court.
Statement of Ashish Kumar, accused named in FIR No.205/16, Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, G. Marg branch was recorded under section 50 of PMLA which revealed that Kamal Jain, CA of accused Rohit Tandon companytacted him to get the demonetized currency on behalf of accused applicant, companyverted into monetized currency on companymission basis.
The ECIR has been registered against Ashish Kumar, Raj Kumar Goel and other unknown persons for offences punishable under Sections 3/4 of the Act of 2002 on the basis of information material, as evident from the predicate offence registered by P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi against the named accused and unknown accused for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 188 and 120B of IPC, being FIR No.205/2016 dated 25th December, 2016.
The learned Sessions Judge while companysidering the bail application adverted to the relevant materials including the CDR analysis of Mobile number of Ashish Kumar, Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, K.G. Marg Branch, Kamal Jain, CA of Rohit Tandon hereinafter referred to as appellant , Dinesh Bhola, Raj Kumar Goel the statements of Kamal Jain, Dinesh Bhola and Ashish Kumar, recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 and analysis of bank statements of stated companypanies.
Taking into account the aforesaid facts, specially the period of incarceration of the petitioner, submission of the charge sheet in the main case and the illness of the mother of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner for a period of 3 weeks.
Out of the said amount, the demand drafts of other banks, apart from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, were also recovered.
The illegal companyversion of demonetized currency, getting the same deposited and issuance of demand drafts is companyroborated through CDR analysis of relevant persons for the relevant period.
As a companysequence, the pending application which was companysidered along with the bail application was also disposed of by the impugned judgment and order dated 5th May, 2017 passed by the High Court.
For the same, alleged CA offered 2 companymission to the other accused persons on all such transactions.
It was also numbered that the demand drafts of Rs.3.60 Crore were issued in fictitious names on the instructions of Bank Manager Ashish Kumar in lieu of companymission received by him in old cash currency.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 10 th August, 2017 acceded to the prayer so made by the appellant.
In order to obtain large profits, accused Raj Kumar Goel and few of his associates have opened many Bank Accounts in Kotak Mahindra and ICICI Bank at Naya Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
The said FIR was registered by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police, New Delhi.
Let the petitioner be released on interim bail for the period of 3 weeks, to be companynted from the date of his release, on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.
The appellant was arrested on 28th December, 2016 in Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR companynection with ECIR/18/DZII/2016/AD RV registered under Date 2017.11.10 204013 IST Reason Sections 3 4 of the Prevention of MoneyLaundering Act, 2002 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2002 .
M. Khanwilkar, J. By these appeals the order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 5th May, 2017, rejecting the Bail Application No.119 of 2017 and Criminal M.B. No.121 of 2017 has been assailed.
Further, in the present case, the accused was arrested by the companypetent authority on the basis of material in his possession giving rise to a reasonable belief about the companyplicity of the accused in the companymission of offence punishable under the Act of 2002.
