ARUN MUKHERJEE Vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is to consider an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with ML case No.03 of 2015 under Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 pending in the Court of learned Judge Special CBI Court No.1 and Judge Special Court of PMLA Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta. This application has been preferred after the prayer for bail was turned down by the learned Judge vide order dated 28th December, 2017.

(2.) Mr. Tirthankar Ghosh learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the learned Judge has failed to exercise his jurisdiction without appreciating the mandate of law and rejected the bail application in a mechanical and cryptic manner by not considering the provision of Section 50 of the said Act, 2002 and thereby acted contrary to the well settled principle of law regarding appreciation of materials collected in the course of investigation as well as guidelines for deciding an application for bail.

(3.) Mr. Ghosh adverted to statement of the petitioner dated 24.2015 who is a debenture trustee member of Rose Valley Group to argue that the petitioner is innocent and not involved in the alleged offence who had surrendered on his own before the concerned Court. It appears from his voluntary statement recorded under PMLA that he was nominated as the Debenture Trustee for the period 2007-08. The number of Debenture Trustees were four including him. Debentures were issued two times, about five crores value each time. In his statement he has stated that Shri Goutam Kundu was the person responsible for the acts and affairs of the Debenture issue who knew about the process of issue of debenture and the money was directly deposited to Rose Valley Branch Office by Debentures Holders. Mr. Ghosh contended that the petitioner was made Debenture Trustee without his contribution or role of such action.