Jharkhand High Court
Dharamveer Bhadoria vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 20 July, 2018
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 2812 of 2018
Dharamveer Bhadoria ...... Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India, Kaushalya Chamber-II, Pee Pee Compound, M.G.
Road, P.O-G.P.O, P.S. HIndpirhi, Ranchi, ...... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
---------
For the Petitioners: Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, Advocate Mr. Kumar Sourav Chatterjee, Advocate For the Directorate Enforcement : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. P.P. 04/ Dated: 20/07/2018
1. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case ECIR/06/PAT/2012/PMLA in which cognizance of offence has been taken under section 3 and under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by the Court of Sri A.K. Mishra No. 1, Spl. Judge, P.M.L.Act, Ranchi.
2. The case of prospection, in short, is that the complainant-Sri Subodh Kumar, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, lodged the complaint against the M/s Nav Nirman Builders represent through its partners and Dharamveer Bhadoria, Managing partner and Power of Attorney, holder of M/s Nav Nirman Builders as well as Director of the M/s Nav Nirman Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd (petitioner) under section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for commission of offence under section 3, Punishable under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 alleging therein that an FIR NO. RC-20A was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranchi on 22.10.2009 for violation of section 120B read with Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P>C and under section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against Shri Basudeo Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer, R.C.D, Chaibasa, M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Adityapur, Jamshedpur for criminal conspiracy, cheating forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine, a forged document and criminal misconduct.
Consequent to the result of investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation , Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in FIR No. RC-20(A)2009, a Final 2 Report/Charge-sheet under section 173 of Cr.P.C has since been filed by C.B.I, ACB Ranchi on 03.12.2010 in the Court of learned Special Judge, (CBI), Ranchi against M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Shri Dharamveer Bhadoria ,partner in M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Shri Basudeo Tiwary the then Executive Engineer, RCD, Shri Ram Bilash Sahu the then Assistant Engineer RCD, Shri Arun Kumar Singh the then Junior Engineer, RCD, Shri Ram Bilash SAhu the then Assistant RCD, Shri Arun Kumar Singh the then Junior Engineer, RCD, Chaibasa under section 120B of IPC r erad with sections 13(2), r/w Section 13(1(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that Shri Basudeo Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department (RCD), Chaibasa, during the period 2006-07, entered into criminal conspiracy with M/s Nav Nirman Builders, the contracting firm M/s Nav NIrman Builders submitted false/bogus invices showing procurement of packed bitumen for the execution of the contractual works a warded in its f avour, which caused wrongful gain to the contracting firm and corresponding wrongful loss to the Government of Jharkhand. It is further alleged that the accused Shri Basudeo Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer, in strict abuse of his official position, dishonestly and fraudulently certified the bills of the contracting firm for payment of Rs. 89,68,966/- was released to the contractor. Dharamvier Bhadoria (petitioner) during the relevant period, was the Managing Partner and holder of Power of Attorney of firm M/s Nav Nirman Builders,
4. Investigation reveals that contractor firm M/s Nav Nirman Builders, had been issued one work order no. 150 (Anu) dated 2w3.02.2007 by aforesaid Basudeo Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer for Special repair work in Km 61,62, 63 & 64 (763 m) of Serakella-Chaibasa Road in Km 1 (150 m) 2(800m), 4(800m) & 5(150 m) of Chaibasa- Bypass Road. As per agreement , total 186.564 Mt of packed bitumen of Grade-60/70 was required to issue the authority letters in favour fo Government Oil Companies for allowing lifting of bitumen by the contractor, mentioning therein the quantity and grade of bitumen required for particular work. But accused Basru Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer conspired with M/s Nav Nirman Builders, and dishonestly did not issue any 3 authority letter, addressed to the Oil Companies for the sale of said quantity and grade of packed bitumen to accused contractor firm M/s Nav Nirman Builders.
5. Investigation further reveals that as per the date of work-order and entries made in the Measurement Book by the accused public servants as aforesaid M/s Nav Nirman Builders, commenced the work on 23.02.2007 and completed it by 29.04.2007. The measurement of the work done by the contractor firm was recorded in the Measurement Books by accused Sri Arun Kumar Singh, the then Junior Engineer and was also countersigned by accused Sri Ram Bilas Sahu, the then Assistant Engineer and finally, the accused Sri Basudeo Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer had certified the execution of said work. Total 186.564 Mt of bitumen was shown to be used in the measurement books as against the estimated quantity of 186.564 Mt of bitumen as per the agreement. These public servants as mentioned above, showed criminal misconduct, by conspiring with M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Jamshedpur and by abusing their official positions passed the bills of contractor firm without any corresponding document proof, ie. Gate pass and invoices for brining the bitumen to the work site.
6. The investigation further disclosed that accused firm M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Jamshepur had not procured any quantity of packed bitumen of g rade 60/70 for the aforesaid road-work of RCD, Road Division, Chaibasa from any Govt. Oil Companies during the period of execution of work ie. From 23.02.2007 to 29.04.2007 M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Jamshedpur had purchased only about 68.016 Mt of bitumen during the relevant period and that too for another work being executed under National Highway Division, Jamshedpur.
7. The investigation further disclosed that accused firm M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Jamshedpur, did not submit any bitumen invoices as a proof of procurement of packed bitumen of grad 60/70 to the O/0 the Executive Engineer, RCD, Road Division, Chaibasa without producing any invoices of bitumen, which were required as a proof for procurement of bitumen.
8. Investigation further reveals that during course of statement of the petitioner recorded under section 50 of PMLA on 26.05.2015, petitioner has stated that during the 4 work period 03 road works were going simultaneously namely (i) Seraikella-Chaibasa Road Kms 61, 62, 63, 64 part and Chaibassa Bypass K.M 1 (150m), 2, (800m)_, 3 (200m) and 5 (150m). (ii) Widening and strengthen of Seraikella-Chaibasa Road and
(iii) Special repair of Seraikella-Koilabira Road. He also stated that total 56 invoices (48+8), covering 8222.870 Mt of bitumen (694.7252 Mt + 128.145 Mt) were submitted for the aforesaid work, only on the demand of the then Executive Engineer in 2008 and not at the time of submitting bills at the time of claiming payment thereof. He further stated that at that time i.e 2008 he being out of station, his staff mistakenly submitted photo copies of 37 invoices pertained to N.H. Division. Thereafter they submitted further 56 invoices.
9. Investigation further reveals that Shri Dhyarmveer Bhadoria partner of M/s Nav Nirman Builders vide his letter dated 22.03.2007 further submitted the particulars of utilization of money receive from RCD, Chaibasa, without any documents, as under:
Total work done value-Rs.89,68,966/-
Expenditure:
(i)Income Tax Rs. 2,00,905/-
(ii) Sale Tax Rs. 1,79,380/-
(iii) Royalty Rs. 86,713/-
(iv) Cost of Bitumen empty drums Rs. 1,41,960/-
(v) Cost of Bitumen with carriage from HPCL,
Godown to Hot Mis Plant Rs, 49,21,738/-
(vi) Hire charges of machineries ie. Vibratory road roller,
water tanker, hot mix plant, paver finisher, including cost of transporting of mix, fuel etc Rs. 5,46,000/-.
(vii) Cost of stone aggregates sand and moorum Rs.
22,45,000/-
(viii) Cost of Earthwork Rs, 83,39,696/-
Contractors profit & overhead charges= Rs. 6,29,270/-
Total= Rs, 89,68,966/-.5
10. Investigation further reveals that Shri Dharamver Bhadoria, (petitioner) strained every nerve to mislead the investigation by hiding and suppressing the facts in respect of the M/s Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd in which he was one of the Director of the Company. In his statement he had submitted he was carrying on business only as a partner of the accused Firm. It is also revealed that the control of the company namely M/s Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd is in the hands of partners of the accused company. The entire share capital as disclosed is owned by the partners of the accused firm and the interest of the partners of accused firm was liable for attachment in the absence of any property available in the name of accused firm. Thus M/s Nav Nirman Buildes, through criminal conspiracy and the public servants through criminal misconduct and hence such ill gotten money which became proceeds of crimes as aforesaid were liable for attachment and therefore, it was essential to invoke the provision of section 5(1) read with 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, 2002 against the following properties in lieu of proceeds of crime because if these properties w ere left unattached they were likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with by the accused persons in such a manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation thereof;
SI No. Property in the Property Details Total Value
name of
1. M/s Nav Sale Deed No. 55,00,000.00/- +Rs.
Nirman 5199/5174 dated 2,20,000.00/-
Builders & 20th
Developers December,2012,
Mauza-Ashangi,
P.O Adityapur,
Thana 126, Ward
No. 09 (i)New
6
Khata No. 77,
New Plot No.
154(p), 155(p) and
110(p), Old Plot
No. 413 (p),
measuring o.02
acres (ii) New
Khata No. 78 New
Plot No. 155 (p)
and 110(P) , Old
Plot no. 412(p),
measuring o.17
acres
2. M/s Nav Sale Deed No. 25,00,000.00+1,14,000.00/-
Nirman 3257/3200 dated
Builders & 14th October,
Developers 2014, Mauza-
Thuidungri,
Thana-Chandil,
Thana No. 173,
Khata No. 106,
Halka No. V, Plot
No. 368,
measuring area
0.20 Acre, plot no.
372 measuring
area 0.40 Acre,
portion of plot no.
7
373, measuring
area 0.05 acre,
total measuring
area 4.00 acre.
11. As stipulated under Section 5(5) of the PMLA, the Complaint No. 760/2017 dated 28.04.2017 was filed by the complainant before the learned Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi under PMLA in resepct of the Provisional Attachment Order (AO) NO. 01/2017.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the bail application has submitted that the sum and substances of the allegation made in the charge sheet against the petitioner is that as per the agreement executed with respect to the works the Executive Engineer was supposed to issue authority letters on the basis of which bitumen was to be procured only from the oil companies of the Government of India namely Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and the invoices raised by the said companies against the Bitumen supplied by them was to be submitted with the offence of the Executive Engineer who was required to verify the same and it was only upon verification of the invoices, receipts, gate passes and quality checks etc that the payment was to be released to the contractor. However, a careful perusal of the statement of the prosecution witnesses itself shows that there are no grounds for sustaining the allegations made by the C.B.I in the charge-sheet and not even a prima facie case of suspicion is made out against the petitioner of having entered into a conspiracy with the accused public servants.
So far as the specific allegation in the F.I.R (RC-20(A)/2000/2009(R) is concerned that out of the 37 invoices purportedly submitted by the petitioner six invoices were false, the same is compeltely belied and proved to be false by the statement of Sri Brundaban Soren who was working as the Senior Plant Manager, IOCL, Jamshedpur bottling plant who has clearly stated that all the 37 invoices were 8 issued from the Jamshedpur Bottling Plant and were genuine. However, the C.B.I despite being aware of the said fact has suppressed the same and has submitted the charge-sheet.
13. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that during course of investigation the C.B.I had also made inquiries from the petitioner firm under section 91 of the Cr.P.C and had made specific queries vide letter dated 15.03.2010 the C.BI made altogether 10 queries inter alia as to whether the petitioner had submitted invoices with the department, whether authority letter had been issued by the office of the Executive Engineer, RCD, Chaibasa for purchase of the bitumen was procured. The copies of the invoices were also demanded from the petitioner. The queries made by the C.B.I were duly replied ton on behalf of the petitioner vide letter dated 12.04.2010 wherein it was clarified that so far as the work in question was concerned the original invoices were not submitted since they were never demanded by the division during the passing of the bills. However, on receipt of letter no. 1151 dated 19.11.2008, Letter No. 1153 and 1156 dated 01.12.2008 from the Executive Engineer, RCD, Chaibasa for all the three works executed by the petitioner firm near about the same time as the Special Repair Works which are the subject matter of the instant case, original invoices relating to 694.7252 Mt. Of bitumen were handed over to Mr. Shankhu Hembram, the accounts clerk of the RCD, Even subsequently, in March, 2009, additional 8 invoices pertaining to 128.1456 M.T was handed over to Shri Muni Lal Choudhary, corresponding clerk of the R.C.D on 26.03.2009. The said Mr. Shankhu Hembram was duly examined by the C.B.I in the course of investigation and in his statement he has confirmed that he had visited the office of the petitioner firm in Jamshedpur and had received 48 number of invoices of packed bitumen for the road works of (1) Seraikella Chaibasa Road (k.M, 48 to K.M. 58 Part II (2) Special Repair work of part K.M>S of Seraikella-Chaibasa Road and Chaibasa Bypass Road and (3) Sijulatakolebera Road (M.M 8 to 12). He has further confirmed that the correspondence clerk of the RC.D had thereafter received 8 invoices of packed bitumen issued by HPCL on 26.12.2009 in the office of the petitioner pertaining to 128.1456 M.T and that the petitioner had submitted invoices for 9 a total quantity of 822.8708 M.T of packed bitumen for the above mentioned three works. Even the correspondence clerk has accepted in his statement recorded by the C.B.I that he had received the 8 invoices. It is pertinent to mentioned that that Sri Chandra Bhanu Singh, the then Executive Engineer, RCD, Chaibasa has also accepted in his statement given to the C.B.I that he had forwarded the invoices received from the petitioner in December, 2008 and March, 2009 to the C.B.I vide his letter dated 18.12.2010.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as such the the case of prosecution that no invoice at all was submitted by the petitioner firm with respect to the special repair work in question, is completely demolished by the statements of its own witnesses.
15. It is further submitted that the entire issue with regard to the non-submission of the invoices has to be considered in view of the clarification given by the petitioner to the C.B.I with regard to the process by which the bitumen was procured by the petitioner firm and the circumstances that the petitioner firm was asked to complete the works in question in a very short time.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that section 13 of the P.C. Act deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant and section 13(1)(d) deals with the classified misdemeanor of the pubic servant in question and admittedly petitioner has received the sum of Rs. 79,11,599.00 from the Govt of Jharkhand for the execution of the contract in question and no forgery or fabrication or cheating was indulged in by the petitioner in receiving the said sum of money from the Government for the contractual work executed by it. The ED out of its own wild imagination has taken this figure of Rs. 79,11,599.00 being the amount received as proceeds of crime.
17. Further, it has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since the charge-sheet was submitted by the C.B.I in R.C. 20(A)/2009 (R)the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 21.08.2012 passed in S.L.A. (Crl) No. 5737/2012 directed that "
in the event the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the surrendering court, Spl. Judge, C.B.I, A.C.B, Ranchi in 10 R.C. No. 20(A)/2009 ® on such conditions as may be considered necessary by the trial court. Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted on bail and has never misused the privilege of bail in aforesaid case.
18. It is further submitted that investigation in this case is complete and final form has been submitted accordingly, cognizance has been taken, the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and he has appeared before the Investigating Officer as and when required and he has never been arrested during investigation and Trial will take some time. Considering all these facts, the petitioners deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
19. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P for the Enforcement Directorate opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and counter-affidavit has been filed by Assistant Director of the Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi stating therein that contracting firm M/s Nav Nirman Builders, petitioner Dharamveer Bhadoria, Managing Partner and Attorney Holder of M/s Nav Nirman Builders during the period 2006-7 entered into criminal conspiracy with the Executive Engineer, Shri Basudeo Tiwary, abusing his official position dishonestly and fraudulently, certified the bills of the firm of this petitioner for procurement of packed bitumen for payment of Rs. 89,68,966/- and accordingly the same was released in the bank account of the petitioner. Further, it was found, as per the work contract the procurement of bitumen was mandatory from the establishment of Indian Government and it was mandatory for the contractor to submit the gate pass and evidence of bitumen carried from Oil companies to work site and the same was mandatory to be verified physically by the Executive Engineer but it was found without any papers submitted by the contracting firm, the Executive Engineer Basudeo Tiwary in connivance with other officials have wrongfully certified the bills of this firm and due to that the petitioner succeeded in withdrawing the payment of Rs. 89,68,966/ in his favour out of which after mandatory deduction Rs. 79,11,559/- were credited into the bank account through 03 nos of cheques. On scrutiny it was found that the aforesaid amount were exhausted by way of number of payments made to the various parties projecting untainted money and caused wrongful loss to the government and wrongful 11 gain to the petitioner and the aforesaid money was projected untained by disbursing the same to others.
20. Further, it has been submitted by the learned A.P.P appearing for Enforcement Directorate that investigation under PMLA is concerned, the proceedings under PMLA, which is s self contained act in itself and has overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force. It is further submitted that from the investigation conducted under PMLA, it is stated that statement of petitioner Dharamveer Bhadoria being the Managing Partner of M/s Nav Nirman Builders was recorded under section 50 of PMLA , 2002. During his statement, he stated that the work orer in question was executed between Shri Basudeo Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer, R.C.D Road Division, Chaibasa and the petitioner in the capacity of Partner of M/s Nav Nirman Builders, that work was started on 23.02.2007 and completed by 29.04.2007. The contractual value of the said work order was 90,26,174/- but his firm had received payment of Rs. 79,11,599.00 in three installments. He further revealed that the did not remember the use of packed bitumen. He also accepted that the then Executive Engineer did not issue any authority letter favuring M/s Nav Nirman Builders Construction for procurement of Bitumen from Govt. OIL Company, that at that time bitumen was not available at Govt. Oil Company, so after physical verification of bitumen stock kept at Hot mix plant of contractor in Sini by Shri Basudeo Tiwary, the then Executive Engineer, RCD, Chaibasa and quality examined by A.P, Quality Control, R.C.D, Chaibiasa.
21. Further, it has been by the learned Spl. P.P that as per agreement the bitumen was to be procured by the contractor from the oil companies of the Government and he had to submit the proof of brining the bitumen to worksite and to submit the gate pass also. However, the authorisation letter in favour of the oil companies were never issued by the Executive Engineer, who in connivance with the petitioner, passed the bills and released cheques. Thus, the petitioner committed offences under sections 120B of I.P.C read with section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which are scheduled offences under the PMLA and were involved in criminal conspiracy and 12 criminal misconduct and thereby, M/s Nav Nirman Builders became beneficiary of Proceeds of Crime to the tune of Rs. 79,11,559/-.
22. Further, it has been submitted by the learnd Spl. P.P for the Enforcement Directorate that as per section 2(1) (u) of the PMLA, Proceeds of Crime, means any property derived or obtained, directely or indirectely, by any persons as a result of criminal actitivity relating t a scheduled offences or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country. From the above definition it is amply clear that even through any property derived or obtained offence or the value of any such property, that shall be the Proceeds of Crime,. It is further stated that the petitioner has not gone through the Provisional Attachment Order as well as the original complaint filed beforre the Adjudicating Authority which are self-explanatory. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
23. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder dated 18.07.2018 to the counter-affidavit stating therein as under:
"7. That it has been contended by the O.P in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner in his letter dated 22.03.2017 claimed that he spent Rs. 49,21,738/- towards carriage of bitumen from HPCl godown to the site of work, whereas the petitioner in his statement recorded before the Department on 17.04.2015 has stated that Bitumen stock Kept at hot mix plant of the petitioner was used in the said work which falsified the contention of the petitioner.
In this regard it is stated that the O.P has disrobed the aforesaid facts and the same is contrary to the record of the case. Para 2.2.(7) of the application at page 54 evidently shows that the O.P asked the petitioner about the utilization of money received from R.C.D, Chaibasa and the petitioner vide his letter dated 22.03.2017, interalia submitted the statement of utilization of the said money. It is humbly stated that the petitioner oat serial no. 5 has specifically mentioned "Cost of Bitumen with carriage from HPCL godown to Hot Mix Plant Rs. 49,21,738/- where as the O.P in its counter-affidavit has deliberately changed the 13 word "Cost of bitumen with carriage". It is humbly stated that the O.P being the agency of the Central Government is not expected to mislead the Hon'ble Court on facts of the case.
8. That it has been contended by the O.P in the counter-affidavit that the defene taken by the petitioner that he already got bitumen in his stock which he used for execution of the work stands falsified from the fact that the petitioner had claimed and realized Rs. 49,21,788/- as reiumbursement of cost of transportation of bitumen from HPCL godown to Hot mix Plant.
In this regard it is stated that the aforesaid statement of O.P in its counter- affidavit is factually worng, denied and contrary to the record of the case. It is humbly stated that Rs. 49,21,788/- is not the cost of transportation/carriage rather it is the cost of bitument including carriage charge.
It is stated that when the petitioner had purchased the bitumen from HPCL godown and carried it to his hot-mix plant, besides cost of bitumen it must had incurred carriage cost as well. The petitioner vide its letter dated 22.03.2017 has simply given the break up of the amount received from R.C.D., Chaibassa for the said work to the Opposite Party."
24. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records and considering the fact that in main case of C.B.I i.e. RC-20(A)2009, the petitioner has been admitted on bail, final form has been submitted in this case, cognizance has been taken, trial will take some time, during investigation the petitioner co-operated in the investigation and he has never been arrested by the E.D, I am inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail with cost on the following grounds:
(i) The petitioner is directed to deposit cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- before the Secretary/ President, JHarkahnd High Court Advocates Association, Ranchi latest by 13.08.2018. The aforesaid amount would be used for the welfare of the learned Members of the concerned Association.
(ii) The Secretary/ President, Jharkahnd High Court Advocates Association, Ranchi is directed to issue receipt with regard to deposition of aforesaid amount, 14 thereafter the petitioner is directed to produce the aforesaid receipt before the trial court on the date of his surrender.
(iii) Petitioner will fully cooperate with the trial and also appear physically on each and every date of trial before the trial court.
(iv) If the petitioner wants exemption from appearance, he will inform the learned counsel for the E.D in advance and after taking necessary permission from Trial Court, he may be exempted from personal appearance.
(v) The petitioner will not try to influence the prosecution witnesses during trial.
(vi) The petitioner will deposit his pass port (if any) before the Trial court- Special court.
25. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below latest by 20.08.2018 and in the event of his arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri A.K. Mishra No. 1, learned Spl. Judge, P.M.L. Act, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case ECIR/06/PAT/2012/PMLA, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and also subject to further condition that one of the bailors must be local resident of Ranchi district.
26. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court as well as to the Secretary/ President, Jharkahnd High Court Advocates Association, Ranchi and copy of this order be handed over to the learned Spl. P.P for the Enforcement Directorate.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/-