Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ambrish Sharma vs Director Of Enforcement on 13 March, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 13 th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7430 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
AMBRISH SHARMA S/O SHRI P.C. SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 56 YEARS, R /O BUNGLOW NO 3, VIJAYDWAR
PEOPLES CAMPUS BHANPUR BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI KISHORE SHRIVASTAVA - SENIOR COUNSEL, SHRI AJAY
GUPTA - SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI YGYAVALK SHUKLA - ADVOCATE
AND MS. ADITI SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT BHOPAL
ZONAL OFFICE B.S.N.L. BHAWAN GRAOUND FLOOR
JAIL ROAD NEW NIRVACHAN SADAN ARERA HILLS
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI VIKRAM SINGH - ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest relating to ECIR/08/INSZO/2022 registered by Directorate of Enforcement, Bhopal Zonal Office for the offence punishable under Sections 3 r/w Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the PMLA) Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 2
2. Senior Counsel further contends that the present applicant is being prosecuted for the offences alleged to have been committed by him under Section 3 r/w Section 4 of the PMLA. Pursuant to registration of an offence, a complaint case has been filed before the trial Court wherein the trial Court issued bailable warrant against the applicant, however, as the applicant was indisposed and was suffering with Hematuria, therefore, he could not appear before the trial Court. Thereafter, a non bailable warrant was issued against the applicant. The applicant then moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the trial Court, which has been rejected vide order dated 03/02/2024.
3. Senior Counsel for the applicant further contends that complaint has been filed before the trial Court alleging inter alia that the present applicant was signatory to a Joint Venture Agreement dated 1.4.2008 and a supplementary Agreement dated 06.11.2008, which were signed by the applicant in the capacity of the Chief Executive Officer, M/s PGH International Private Limited. An amount of Rs.187.77 Crores as FDI was received by M/s PGH International Pvt. Ltd. The present applicant by a resolution of Board dated 22/02/2008 was authorized by the Board to sign a Joint Venture Agreement. The Joint Venture Agreement was signed by the present applicant on behalf of PGH International Pvt. Ltd on 01/04/2008 and had agreed to transfer Rs.40 Crore to Suresh Narayan Vijaywargiya who is one of the accused in the complaint case. Thereafter again vide resolution dated 06/11/2008, the applicant as a CEO of M/s PGH International Pvt. Ltd also signed a supplementary agreement whereby M/s PGH International Pvt. Ltd. agreed to transfer Rs.6 Crore to Suresh Narayan Vijaywargiya in addition to Rs.40 Crore as agreed in Joint Venture Agreement.
Signature Not Verified4. The prosecution commenced investigation against the present Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 3 applicant, M/s People International and Service Limited, M/s PGH International Pvt. Ltd., M/s People General Hospital Pvt. Ltd. M/s PG Infrastructure Service Ltd., Sarjanik Jal Kalyan Prathmik Nyas, Suresh Narayan Vijaywargiya, Ishteyaq Hussain Siddiquee, Ram Vilas Vijaywargiya. The present applicant has been implicated only on the ground that the present applicant was CEO of M/s PGH International Pvt. Ltd.which is one of the accused. The present applicant has no concern or nexus with the transactions, which are detailed in the complaint pertaining to M/s People International Services Ltd., M/s People General Hospital Ltd, M/s PG Infrastructure Ltd. or Sarvajanik Kalyan Prathmik Nyas. It is contended that that the allegations against the present applicant are detailed by the prosecution in paragraph 20.4 of the complaint and as per the said allegations, the present applicant signed the Joint Venture Agreement dated 01/04/2008 and as per the Joint Venture Agreement, a sum of Rs.40 Crore was transferred to S.M. Vijayavargiya. The other allegation was with respect to signing of supplementary Agreement. It is contended by the counsel that the applicant is not even remotely connected with the said offence in view of the provisions of Companies Act, 2013. and a Director of the company has a duty to lookafter managment of the company and no other liability can be attached with a Director. The counsel further contends that the company has a separate existence and the same is distinguished from its member. Therefore, the present applicant having no nexus with the company, could not have been implicated in the present case. The reliance is placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Heavy Engg. Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar - AIR 1970 SC 82 and Rustom Cavasjee Cooper (Banks Nationalisation) v. Union of India - AIR 1970 SC 564.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 45. It is also contended by the counsel that Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides for punishment of fraud and as per the provisions of Section 447 of the Companies Act, a person can be punished who is found to be guilty of fraud involving an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- or 1% of the turnover of the company, whichever is lower. It is contended by the counsel that there are no allegations of fraud against the present applicant, therefore, no overt act can be attributed to the applicant so as to attract the provisions of Section 447 of the Companies Act.
6. Learned counsel further submits that there is a schedule appended to the PMLA and the said schedule reflects that an offence committed under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 is also covered within the meaning of Section 2(y) of the PMLA. It is contended by the counsel that though an offence under Section 447 of the Companies Act, was included in Schedule, but the said insertion was made in the schedule vide an amendment dated 19/04/2018. Before insertion of Section 447 of Companies Act, in the Schedule appended to the PMLA, offence under Section 447 of the Companies Act, was not a scheduled offence within the meaning of Section 2(y) of the PMLA. It is contended by the counsel that undisputedly in the Companies Act, 1956, there were no provisions akin to Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Companies Act, 2013 came into effect from 29/08/2013, yet Section 447 of the Companies Act was added in the schedule to PMLA only vide notification dated 19/04/2018. It is thus contended by the counsel that at the time of signing of Joint Venture Agreement on 01/04/2008 or supplementary Agreement on 06/11/2008, the Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 was not in existence, as the Companies Act, 2013 was subsequently enacted.
Signature Not Verified7. It is further contended by the counsel that the arrest of the applicant is Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 5 not at all warranted inasmuch, the applicant upon receipt of summon issued by the respondent, he appeared before the investigating agency and the said fact is evident from the perusal of the complaint itself which reflect that the present applicant was issued a summon on 06/10/2023 and was called upon to appear before the respondents on 12/10/2023. The applicant appeared before the respondents during the course of investigation on 12/10/2023. The statement of the applicant has also been recorded which is also evident from paragraph 20.4 of the complaint. It is thus contended by the counsel that as the applicant co- operated with the investigation and the respondents did not make any effort to arrest the applicant, thus, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Paras Kumar Bansal Vs. Enforcement Directorate [SLP (Criminal) No. 8161 of 2023] dated 28/08/2023 & Rajesh Kumar Vs. The Directorate of Enforcement [SLP (Crl.) No. 12803 of 2023], the arrest of the applicant is not required. Learned counsel has also placed reliance an order passed the Apex Court in the case of Swetab Kumar Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 339 and submits that an amendment act cannot post facto criminalize the possession. The Apex Court held that such a prosecution in view of the ex post facto amendment is directly violative of article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on an order passed by the Indore Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.56523/2023 (Ashok Pipada Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement) where the benefit of anticipatory bail was granted to the accused therein by the Court. The reliance has also been placed on the order passed by the Allahabad High Court in Govind Prakash Pandey Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 6 Misc. Bail Application No. 1943 of 2023) dated 20.2.2023. It is also contended by the counsel that one of the co-accused Suresh Narayan Vijaywargiya has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 06/02/2024 in MCr.C. No.58013/2023. Therefore, the present applicant deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. It is contended by the counsel that this Court while granting bail to the co-accused Suresh Narayan Vijaywargiya has taken into consideration the aspect that the co-accused had appeared before the respondent upon receiving summons on two occasions and also the fact that the complaint was filed on 08/11/2023 i.e within ten days of the co-accused appearance before the respondents on 27/10/2023. It is contended by the counsel that the present applicant has also co-operated with the investigation and appeared as well pursuant to summons and thus the same ground is also available with the present applicant.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the application for anticipatory bail deserves to be dismissed. It is contended by the counsel that Section 45 of the PMLA puts an embargo on exercise of powers for grant of bail under Section 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C.. It is contended by the counsel that while seeking anticipatory bail, the accused is required to satisfy the twin test as stipulated in Section 45 of thee PMLA. In the present case, there is a complete failure on the part of the applicant to demonstrate that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty. The complaint reflects direct allegation against the applicant, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed. It is contended by the counsel that the provisions of PMLA came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others Vs. Union of India and others - 2022 SCC Online SC 929 wherein the Apex Court while dealing with the various provisions of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 7 PMLA, observed that an offence of money laundering is an offence which affects the public at large and has direct impact on a country's financial growth. The Apex Court also held that the offence of money laundering also results in civil unrest and as such the provisions so stipulated in the PMLA are required to be strictly implemented inasmuch as, not only the financial system but even sovereignty as well as integrity of the country also gets affected. It is further contended by the counsel that the Apex Court in paragraph 43, 140, 141, 183 of the judgment has dealt with the issue elaborately and has also held that Section 4 of PMLA has no relation to the predicate offence but the same pertains to offence of money laundering as per Section 3 of the PMLA. Accordingly, it is contended by the counsel that the application deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.
9. Learned counsel has also submitted that in the present case the investigation is not complete which is evident from paragraph 25 of the complaint and therefore, the applicant cannot take recourse to the ground that as he has co-operated with the investigation, his presence is no more required and accordingly, he is entitled for bail. Such a submissions of the application is unsustainable and misconceived in view of the paragraph 25 of the complaint. Learned counsel also submits that one of the co-accused M/s People General Hospital even filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the Indore Bench of this Court which has been dismissed vide order dated 03/11/2023 and the Indore Bench of this Court in paragraph 24 of the order has specifically observed that the allegations levelled in the complaint prima facie discloses commission of an offence. It is also contended that the Apex Court in the case o f Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement -
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 8SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2023 has also considered the aspect of parity and held that even on the ground of parity, co-accusd cannot claim bail as a matter of right. The Apex Court in paragraph 18 dealt with the aspect as regards parity and also considered the effect of Section 45 of PMLA and concluded that it is imperative for accused to prima facie prove that he is not guilty of alleged offence and until and unless, said burden is discharged, it cannot be said that there is fulfillment of twin test as stipulated in Section 45 of the PMLA.
10. It is also contended by the counsel that in the present case after filing of complaint the trial Court issued a bailable warrant against the present applicant, however, despite opportunity, the applicant did not appear before the trial Court, therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the applicant for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the present applicant in his statement has stated that he has signed the Joint Venture and the supplementary Agreements under the instructions of co- accused Suresh Narayan Vijaywargiya. Learned counsel contends that the present applicant cannot escape from his liability as colossal amount was siphoned off and the present applicant was an active participant in the process and therefore, the truth is still to be unearthed.
11. The counsel for the respondent submits that the present applicant has willfully avoided his appearance before the trial Court, which is evident from the rejection order passed by the trial Court. Hence in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kishore Meena Vs. Union of India (through CBI), Misc. Criminal Case No. 45420 of 2022, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement - (2019) 9 SCC 24 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 9
12. The counsel for the respondent further submits that the applicant cannot claim parity with the co-accused Suresh Narayan Vijaywargiya, inasmuch as he was granted bail on the ground of his poor health conditions, which are discussed by this Court in Paragraphs 8, 13 and 15 of the order dated 6.2.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 58013 of 2023. However, no such ground is available with the applicant in the present case so as to attract the provision of Section 45 of the PMLA.
13. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
14. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.
15. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail on the ground that as Section 447 of the Companies Act was included in the schedule appended to the PMLA by way of amendment dated 19.4.2018, hence the present applicant cannot be implicated on the allegation that he executed a Joint Venture Agreement on 1.4.2008 and also a supplementary Agreement on 6.11.2008, according to which, a sum of Rs. 46 (40 6) Crores was transferred to Suresh Narayan Vijaywargiya.
16. To deal with the said contention, it is useful to refer to the complaint filed by the respondent before the trial Court. A perusal of the complaint reflects that, three complaints were filed by the Deputy Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Gwalior M.P. under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. The said complaints were registered vide Complaint No. 3/2021, 10/2021 and 12/2021. As per the allegations levelled in the complaints, one Mr. Ashok Kumar Khosla made investment of Rs. 187.52 Crore by way of purchase of shares in M/s P.G.H. International Private Limited. The company Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 10 i.e. M/s PGH gave loan to one Sarvajanik Jankalyan Parmarthik Nyas i.e. a Trust registered under the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951. The said loan was not in the interest of the shareholders/company as the rate of interest was much lesser than the prevailing market price and the company had given interest free loans to related parties instead of carrying on its main business activity. Loans given to Sarvajanik Jankalyan Parmarthik Nyas were interest free whereas prevailing market rates at that time was around 6% - 8%. Thus, the company has extended wrongful gain to the other related party which includes the management of M/s PGH International Private Limited and wrongful loss to the shareholders/company of approximately more than 6% - 8% annually on the funds transferred to related concerns which amounted to fraud.
17. It is further important to take note of Section 3 of the PMLA, which is reproduced as under:-
3. Offence of money-laundering.- Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connectedproceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untained property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.
Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,-
(i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-
laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 11 knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely:-
(a) concealment; or
(b) possession; or
(c) acquisition; or
(d) use; or
(e) projecting as untained property; or
(f) claiming as untained property, in any manner whatsoever;
ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untained property or claiming it as untained property in any manner whatsoever."
18. A perusal of Explanation (ii) to Section 3, reflects that the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime. The aforesaid section covers all the activities within its scope till the person is being directly or indirectly benefitted by the proceeds of crime. This aspect has been taken into consideration by the Apex Court i n Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others Vs. Union of India and others (supra) wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph 187(v)(a) held as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 12187(v)(a) - "Section 3 of the 2002 Act has a wider reach and captures every process and activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy. The Explanation inserted to Section 3 by way of amendment of 2019 does not expand the purport of Section 3 but is only clarificatory in nature. It clarifies the word "and" preceding the expression projecting or claiming as "or"; and being a clarificatory amendment, it would make no difference even if it is introduced by way of Finance Act or otherwise.
19. Apart from the above, even when a Director discontinues his relationship with the company by submitting his resignation, he is liable for offences, which occurred during his tenure. The proviso to Section 168 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 stipulates under:-
168. Resignation of director. -
(1) xxxxxxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxxxxxx "Provided that the director who has resigned shall be liable even after his resignation for the offences which occurred during his tenure.
20. The Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others Vs. Union of India and others (supra) has also held that provision of Section 45 are applicable to the bail applications under Sections 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in Paragraph 187 (xiii)(d) as under:-
187 (xiii)(d) - As regards the prayer for grant of bail, irrespective of the nature of proceedings, including those under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or even upon invoking the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 13 jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 may apply.
21. Thus, as per the allegations, which are levelled in the complaint, it is evident that there is prima facie case of money laundering within the ambit of PMLA. It is further evident from perusal of the complaint that the present applicant gave a statement before the investigating agency and stated that he was in the United States of America and came back to India in the year 2007 and thereafter started liasoning work of M/s PGH International Private Limited and was also looking after functioning of People's Samachar since 2020. As per Para 20.4.2 of the complaint, the present applicant was asked about the Joint Venture Agreement dated 1.4.2008 executed between M/s PGH International Private Limited and co-accused S.N. Vijaywargiya, through which proposal was made to pay Rs. 40 Crores to co-accused S.N. Vijaywargiya for his continued association with the project. The present applicant replied that he never held the post of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in M/s PGH International Private Limited. Though he signed the said Agreement but at that time he had no knowledge of the deal of the agreement executed between M/s PGH International Pvt. Ltd and co-accused Suresh Narayan Vijaywargia. He further stated that he was authorized to sign the Joint Venture Agreement vide minutes of meeting dated 22.2.2008 and vide minutes of meeting dated 6.11.2008, he was further authorized to sign supplementary agreement.
22. This statement of the applicant, if placed juxtaposition with the resolution by which the applicant was authorized to sign Joint Venture Agreement or supplementary agreement, it reflects that the applicant was authorized to sign Joint Venture Agreement as the applicant was shown as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, which, in fact, was denied by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 14 applicant during course of investigation. As per the resolution dated 22.2.2008, the present applicant was authorized to sign Joint Venture Agreement and also to do such act and things as may be necessary and incidental to finalise the deal. Joint Venture Agreement is also available on record, which reflects that the present applicant while projecting himself to be the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, signed the Joint Venture Agreement with co-accused S.N.Vijaywargiya and thus, the applicant's signing the Agreement in the capacity of the Chief Executive Officer of the Company on the strength of enabling resolution, prima facie discloses the applicant's involvement.
23. It is further evident from perusal of the complaint that on account of alleged act, the shareholders of the Company suffered losses and various properties belonging to all the accused were provisionally attached including Rs.1,02,28,031/- from the applicant, which is evident from the Provisional Attachment Order, reference of which finds mention in the complaint. It is also evident from Paragraph 9 of the complaint that outstanding balance of loan to others in respect of PGH International Pvt. Ltd. is Rs.25.65 Crore and outstanding balance of loan lent to others as on 31.3.2022 in respect of PGH International Pvt. Ltd. is Rs.22,05,10,516/-. As per Table 8, which finds mention in Paragraph 9.2 of the complaint, there are allegations of grant of loan to the tune of Rs.45,01,10,043/- (interest free) and outstanding as per balance- sheet for the year ending on 31.3.2022 was Rs.33,16,02,562/-.
24. Thus, it is apparent that there is still outstanding of loan, which is to be recovered and the said outstanding of loan is an offshoot of Joint Venture Agreement as well as supplementary Agreement as per the allegations levelled in the complaint. Such outstanding of loan has caused recurring loss to Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 15 shareholders of the Company. Hence, the complaint prima facie discloses recurring cause in terms of Section 3 of PMLA and hence the contention as regards prosecution being based on Ex Post Facto amendment, is unsustainable.
25. Section 45 of the PMLA specifically provides that the offences under the Act are non-bailable and cognizable and no person accused of an offence under the Act is entitled for bail unless the Public Prosecutor is given a liberty to oppose the application and the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
26. In the present case, the complaint prima facie discloses commission of offence by the applicant as well as co-accused, therefore, this Court does not find any reasonable ground to believe that the present applicant is not guilty of crime.
27. The applicant cannot claim parity on the basis of bail granted to co- accused S.N.Vijaywargiya vide order dated 6.2.2024 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 58013 of 2023, inasmuch as, before granting him anticipatory bail, as he was seeking protection contained in the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, he was referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal (for short AIIMS) for the purpose of examination and accordingly, the report submitted by the Medical Board of AIIMS was considered by this Court in Paragraph 8 and this Court while considering the said report in detail, ultimately concluded that in view of the report, co-accused S.N. Vijaywargiya was entitled for anticipatory bail in terms of the provision contained in Section 45 of the PMLA. This Court in Paragraph 15 of the order observed that the applicant therein was entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground that he was aged about Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 16 83 years and was suffering from Ishemic Heart Disease (IHD) since 2015 with preserved EF, Hypothyroidism and Bilateral Knee Osteoarthritis with Lumbar Spondylosis. This Court while considering the case of the applicant therein within the framework of the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA in addition to infirmity and sickness of the applicant therein also considered the aspect that he appeared before the Investigating Agency on two occasions. Co-accused S.N. Vijaywargiya despite ailment, had appeared twice before the Investigating Agency. It is evident from Paragraph 15 of the order that this Court considered the case of the co-accused for anticipatory bail in terms of the provisions contained in Section 45 of the PMLA and his health, as there was a report as regards his sickness. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid aspects, the benefit of anticipatory bail was extended to co-accused S.N. Vijaywargiya.
28. The present applicant cannot claim parity only on the ground that the present applicant also cooperated with the Investigating Agency. This contention of the applicant is also liable to be rejected, inasmuch as, upon filing of the complaint, when the applicant was issued a bailable warrant to appear before the trial Court, the applicant did not appear before the trial Court and therefore, the trial Court rejected the application of the applicant for anticipatory bail.
29. It is evident from perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial Court that on 7.12.2023, the applicant was issued a bailable warrant to appear before the trial Court on 22.12.2023. The applicant was again vide order dated 5.1.2024 called upon to appear but the present applicant did not appear, rather made efforts to demonstrate before the Court that as he was indisposed, he could not appear when the case was fixed before the trial Court. Since there Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM 17 was failure on the part of the applicant to appear before the trial Court despite service of bailable warrant, the trial Court issued arrest warrant against the applicant vide order dated 18.1.2024. It is thus clear that merely because the applicant appeared before the Investigating Agency on a singular date, the same does not entitle him to be released on anticipatory bail while claiming parity with co-accused S.N. Vijaywargiya.
30. As this Court is not satisfied that there is no reasonable ground to believe that the applicant is guilty, no case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant is made out taking into consideration the nature of accusation against the applicant.
31. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE Astha/PB Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 3/23/2024 3:47:33 PM