RAJESH JAIN Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a complaint under Sec. 45 read with Sec. 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'the PMLA') in complaint bearing no. COMA-2-2021 dtd. 22/1/2021 for offence under Sec. 3 punishable under Sec. 4 of the PMLA.

(2.) The aforesaid complaint was instituted initially against Radhey Shyam, Bansi Lal and others wherein the petitioner was nowhere named and it is much later that the petitioner came to be arrayed as accused. As such, the sequence leading to arraying of the petitioner as accused needs to be referred to, which is briefly stated herein-under: 8/9/2018 : FIR No. 358/2018 dtd. 8/9/2018 was registered at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad, District Fatehabad, Haryana for offences under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 against Radhey Shyam and Bansi Lal, Directors of M/s FMLC and others. 9/9/2018 : FIR No. 859/2018 dtd. 9/9/2018 was registered at Police Station, Hisar, Haryana under Ss. 420, 406 and 506 IPC, against Radhey Shyam and Bansi Lal, Directors of M/s FMLC and others. 31/8/2019 : Pursuant to constitution of S.I.T., the matters were investigated by S.I.T. and charge-sheet no.2 dtd. 31/8/2019 was presented in FIR no. 859 and charge-sheet no. 4 dtd. 20/11/2019 in FIR no. 358 was presented. 9/10/2019 : During the course of investigation of the aforesaid cases, it had transpired that the accused involved in the said cases were also involved in some other FIRs lodged in the State of Telangana i.e. FIR No. 710/2018 dtd. 30/8/2018, Police Station Kukkatpally, Telangana, FIR No. 643/2018 dtd. 15/10/2018, Police Station Ramchandrapuram, Cyberbad, Telangana, FIR No. 541/2018 dtd. 4/9/2018 at Police Station Chandanagar, Telangana and FIR No. 768/2018 dtd. 14/9/2018, Police Station Mailardedpally, Telangana. The Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad, on the basis of FIR dtd. 30/8/2018, registered ECIR No.10/HYZO dtd. 20/3/2019 against Radhey Shyam, Bansi Lal, M/s FMLC and M/s Global Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, the Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad, on account of FIRs registered by Haryana Police and on the basis of the residential address and office address of the companies, transferred the investigation to the Chandigarh Zonal Office. The ECIR was renumbered as ECIR/03/CDZO-II/2019 dtd. 09/10/2019. Later, the Chandigarh Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement took cognizance of scheduled offences and initiated investigation by recording ECIR/CDZO-II/02/2021, dtd. 11/1/2021 at Chandigarh. 22/1/2021 : The Enforcement Directorate filed complaint dtd. 22/1/2021 (Annexure P-1) before Special Court, Panchkula against Radhey Shyam, Bansi Lal and others wherein one Pranjil Batra was cited as a witness on the premises that his professional services as a computer software expert were being used by the co-accused. 7/5/2022 : However, subsequently, upon finding direct involvement of Pranjil Batra in the scam, he was arrested on 10/3/2022. His statement was recorded on 11/3/2022 and a supplementary complaint was filed against him on 7/5/2022, wherein it is specifically alleged that he was part and parcel of the scam and had benefited to the extent of about '53 crores. 20/5/2022 : The petitioner Rajesh Jain was summoned vide order dtd. 20/5/2022 passed by Special Judge on the basis of statement of co-accused Pranjil Batra. The petitioner is alleged to be instrumental in facilitating co-accused Pranjil Batra for purchasing/acquiring 10 dummy/paper/fictitious companies in cash consideration to the tune of '42 crores through 'accommodation' entries.

(3.) The learned counsel representing the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is nowhere named in the complaint initially instituted against the main accused on 22/1/2021 and has been nominated as an accused subsequently on the basis of statement of co-accused Pranjil Batra who himself was also not named in FIR initially and that such like evidence would hardly carry any evidentiary value so as to justify his custody. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner, having been summoned vide order dtd. 20/5/2022 passed by Special Judge, Panchkula on the basis of statement of co-accused Pranjil Batra, is on a better footing than the main accused who were initially named in the complaint and who were never sent into custody. The learned counsel submits that since investigation qua the petitioner already stands concluded and it was pursuant to conclusion of the same that supplementary complaint came to be filed against him, there is no occasion for subjecting him to custody at this stage.