GOUTAM KUNDU Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with ML Case No. 03 of 2015 arising out of ECIR No. KLZO/02/2014 pending before the court of Learned Chief Judge in -charge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta.

(2.) MR . Basu, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner as the Chairman of Rose Valley Real Estates Construction Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Rose Valley) collected money by issuing secured debentures by way of private placement in compliance with the guidelines issued by Securities and Exchange Board of India from time to time. Mr. Basu further submits that the monetary penalty of Rs. 1 crore imposed on the Rose Valley by the adjudicating authority under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the SEBI Act) was reduced to Rs. 10 lakh by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai on December 12, 2013 in Appeal 106/2013. Mr. Basu argues that the proceeding under Section 24 of the SEBI Act, 1992 is challenged in the High Court by way of revision and the said revision is still pending for hearing and the further proceeding of the complaint case being C/14214 of 2013 has been stayed by the High Court in the said revision. Mr. Basu also argues that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court directed the opposite party not to take any coercive measure against the petitioner in FMA 4031 of 2014 on November 28, 2014, which continued till the disposal of the appeal on March 30, 2015. Mr. Basu also submits that the complaint was filed by the opposite party on April 2, 2015 against the petitioner under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money -Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the PML Act), though no offence is made out against the petitioner under Section 3 of the PML Act. The further submission made by Mr. Basu is that the petitioner is detained in custody since March 25, 2015, though the petitioner co -operated in the investigation by visiting the office of the opposite party in response to the notice on six occasions before his arrest. He also submits that the petitioner has deposited the passport in the office of the Enforcement Directorate in compliance with the direction given in connection with this case. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was granted bail for limited period of two weeks to attend the funeral ceremony after the death of the father of the petitioner and that there is no allegation that the petitioner has tampered with the evidence at any material point of time.

(3.) MR . Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has supplemented the argument advanced by Mr. Basu by submitting that the power of the High Court to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not restricted by the conditions laid down under Section 45 of the PML Act. He further submits that the petition of complaint is already filed before the Special Court and as such the opposite party cannot take the plea that the investigation is still going on as there is no scope for filing supplementary petition of complaint under the provisions of the PML Act.