DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Vs. GAGAN DHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above captioned first petition, petitioner-Directorate of Enforcement seeks quashing of order of 4th January, 2018 vide which respondent-Gagan Dhawan has been granted regular bail in ECIR/HQ/17/2017, under Sections 3/4 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short 'PMLA'), whereas in the above captioned second petition, challenge is to order of 23rd October, 2018, vide which respondent-Ranjit Malik @ Johny has been granted bail in the aforesaid ECIR/HQ/17/2017. Since these petitions pertain to ECIR/HQ/17/2017 and the challenge to the aforesaid impugned orders is on similar grounds, therefore, both these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts as noticed in the impugned order of 4 th January, 2018 are as under:-

(2.) The role of respondent- Ranjit Malik @ Johny, as re-capitulated in the impugned order of 23rd October, 2018, is as under:-

(3.) On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for respondents vehemently controverted the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of petitioner and submitted that the gravity of offence cannot be the sole consideration for grant or refusal of bail. Reliance was placed upon Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 to submit that in economic offences of huge magnitude, economy of the country may be jeopardized but at the same time, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that co-accused Hemant Hathi has been released on bail and the case of respondents herein is on better footing than the case of co-accused Hemant Hathi. Attention of this Court was drawn to Supreme Court's decision in State of U.P. through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 to submit that vague allegation of accused tampering with the evidence or witnesses, cannot be a ground to refuse the bail. It was submitted that in Union of India Vs. Hassan Ali Khan and Crl.Rev.P.1180/2018 Anr. (2011) 10 SCC 235, bail was refused in a case of money laundering while relying upon Section 45 (1) of PMLA and now, Supreme Court in Nikesh Shah Vs. Union of India and Anr. (2018) 11 SCC 1 has declared Section 45(1) of PMLA as unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was also placed upon decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Upendra Rai Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9086 to submit that bail has been granted to accused against whom far more serious allegations were levelled. It was submitted that respondents-accused persons have already joined the investigation and now the case is at the stage of charge. Thus, it was submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and so, these petitions deserve dismissal.