RAKESH MANEKCHAND KOTHARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSIDERING the common issue involved in both these petitions, they are taken up for final hearing together and are being disposed of by the common judgment.

(2.) THE facts of both the petitions are almost similar, however, for the purpose of deciding the issues involved in these petitions, facts of Special Criminal Application No. 4496 of 2014 are taken up. The facts of Special Criminal Application No. 4496 of 2014, as per the petitioner of that petition, are as under:

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 4496 of 2014, FIR No. 5/16 of 2014 was registered by District Crime Branch, Surat on 11.04.2014 alleging various offences under IPC against one M/s. R.A. Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Surat and its directors for preparing bogus bills of entry and presenting the same for outward remittance to various parties in Dubai and Hong Kong. That another FIR came to be registered by District Crime Branch, Surat on 13.04.2014 for various offences under IPC against M/s. Agni Gems Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Harmony Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and the directors for preparing bills of entry and presenting the same for outward remittance to various parties in Dubai and Hong Kong. However, Enforcement Case Information Report [ECIR]01/Surat -Sub -Zonal/2014 -15 was registered by Directorate of Enforcement of Ahmedabad, Surat Zone, Surat against persons accused in the aforesaid FIRs dated 11.04.2014 and 13.04.2014 and it was registered by respondent No. 3 and investigation commenced under provisions of the P.M.L. Act and the Rules framed there under. During the course of investigation, the Deputy Director of the Directorate of enforcement complained against 79 accused including interested persons and legal entities, but the petitioners herein were not named. Later on, when the petitioner, who appeared on being summoned was arrested by respondent No. 3 purportedly in exercise of powers conferred by Section 19(1) of the P.M.L. Act. On reasonable belief that the petitioner has been guilty of offences punishable under Section 4 read with Section 3 of P.M.L. Act, on 02.09.2014 an application was filed by respondent No. 3 before the designated Judge under P.M.L. Act viz. Principal District Judge, Ahmedabad [Rural] for seeking enforcement custody of the petitioner. In the remand application it was claimed by respondent No. 3 that arrest of petitioner was done on 01.09.2014 for involvement in the huge money laundering racket and investigation could not be completed in short time. Thereafter, the application for opposing further remand and for seeking bail was filed by the petitioner on 08.09.2014 for seeking temporary bail, till final disposal of the said application. However, by order dated 09.09.2014, learned Sessions Judge [P.M.L.A.] Designated Court was pleased to reject the prayers for interim relief and thereafter matter was kept for hearing on regular bail. An affidavit in reply was filed by respondent No. 3 on 15.09.2014 and arguments were canvassed by both the learned advocate for the parties respectively and finally application filed by the petitioner for opposing remand and grant of bail came to be rejected by order dated 08.10.2014.