Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

20B/420/465/467/468/471/474/475/477Aipc vs In Re : Pranjal Kaushik on 15 January, 2024

15.01.2024
 tkm/ct 28                      C.R.M. (DB) 4781 of 2023
sl no. 51
             In Re : An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal
             Procedure in connection with Hare Street PS case no. 70/2023 dated
             10.3.2023                                   under                sections
             120B/420/465/467/468/471/474/475/477AIPC
                                 and
             In Re : Pranjal Kaushik                             ........ petitioner

                   Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv
                   Mr. Manas Dsgupta
                                            ...... for the petitioner
                   Mr. Debasis Roy, ld PP
                   Mr. R D Nandi
                   Mr. Arani Bhattacharya
                                            ...... for the State
                   Mr. Arun Kr. Maiti (Mohanti)
                   Mr. Manabendra Nath Bandyopadhyay
                                            ...... for UOI
                   Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, ld ASGI
                   Mr. Arijit Chakraborti
                   Mr. Deepak Sharma
                                            ...... for the ED



                1.

Petitioner contends that he is in no way connected with the alleged offence. His complicity has transpired from the statement of co-accused who is presently on bail. He also contends no investigation was done with regard to mobile phone which was seized from his possession. He prays for bail.

2. Learned lawyer for the State opposes the bail prayer. He contends that the petitioner and co-accused had conspired and furnished forged documents to open 11 accounts in Dalhousie Branch of J&K bank. Accounts were illegally opened on the strength of false documents and a large volume of money was transmitted from the said accounts to offshore entities.

3. In view of the allegations in the FIR which involves opening of fake bank accounts on the strength of forged documents to make 2 remittance to offshore entities we called upon the Enforcement Directorate to submit report with regard to the investigation undertaken under the PMLA Act.

4. Pursuant to direction Enforcement Directorate has submitted report.

5. Form the report it appears that the voluminous remittances had been made on the basis of forged bills of lading through the aforesaid accounts maintained at J&K bank. Petitioner is involved in making deposits in the said accounts which were remitted to offshore entities.

6. We have considered the materials on record. Investigation has revealed an intricate web through which monies were siphoned through the fake accounts and remitted abroad. Petitioner caused one Prem Sagar, a co-accused to open a firm namely M/s. Bluo Logistic. Large funds were deposited by the said concern into the forged accounts which were subsequently siphoned away. Further investigation is necessary to unravel the purpose of such remittances to offshore entities.

7. It is contended co-accused have been enlarged on bail by the Magistrate. We note though bail prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the sessions judge, the learned magistrate proceeded to release co-accused on bail without taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the crime which had far reaching transborder implications. Hence we are not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the ground that co-accused have been enlarged on bail.

3

8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.

9. We have noted of the fact that in a grave offence involving transborder implications where PMLA proceedings have been initiated, learned magistrate without adverting to the gravity and seriousness of the offence mechanically granted bail to co-accused namely Rajnish Bain, Sandip Das @ Sourav Mandal, Ajit Kumar Rana, Prem Sagar, Amit Jain and Wilfred John Vincent Paul Naidu vide order dated 7.10.2023.

10. Hence, we issue a suo motu rule calling upon the co- accused Rajnish Bain, Sandip Das @ Sourav Mandal, Ajit Kumar Rana, Prem Sagar, Amit Jain and Wilfred John Vincent Paul Naidu to show cause why order dated 7.10.2023 granting bail to them shall not be cancelled.

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)