Jharkhand High Court
Uma Shankar Malviya vs The Directorate Of Enforcement on 24 February, 2015
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H.C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.3964 of 2014
Uma Shankar Malviya ..... Petitioner
Versus
The Directorate of Enforcement .... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo
For the ED : Mr. Amit Kumar Das
-----
4/24.2.2015Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with ECIR No.02/PAT/2009/AD(C), for the alleged offences under Sections 3 & 4 of P.M.L. Act.
Initially a Vigilance Case No.9 of 2009 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on the basis of a complaint filed by one Rajiv Sharma, in which Madhu Koda, the Ex-Chief Minister of State of Jharkhand and other persons, including Bhanu Pratap Sahi, Ex-Health Minister of State Government were made accused persons. While the said case was in the investigation stage, a PIL was filed in this Court and pursuant to the order dated 4.8.2010 in WP(PIL) No.4700 of 2008, the investigation of the Vigilance Case was handed over to the CBI, pursuant whereto, the CBI registered RC 5(A)/ 2010/ AHD - Ranchi and investigation was taken up. In the said case, the petitioner was also made an accused being the OSD of Bhanu Pratap Sahi, the Ex-Health Minister of the State and the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner also, showing the involvement of the petitioner in making the donations in a trust, namely, Dehati Sthapna Nyas, which was a trust of Bhanu Pratap Sahi. It was alleged that donations were shown to be made in the said Dehati Sthapna Nyas by fictitious and nonexistent persons. The statement of one Vinay Kumar Jalan, Charted Accountant, recorded under 164 of the Cr.P.C., showed that it was the petitioner, who brought the documents of the said trust to him for registration before the Income Tax Commissioner. It was the petitioner, who had furnished the list of fictitious donors and the PAN cards of those persons were also arranged and provided to him by the petitioner. Thus, on the basis of the FIR in RC 5(A)/ 2010/ AHD - Ranchi, the present case has been instituted by the Enforcement Directorate, as ECIR/02/PAT/ 2009/ AD against the accused persons, including the petitioner. The petitioner has been made accused in the present case mainly on the basis of the aforesaid statement of the C.A., Vinay Kumar Jalan, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C,. Apart from this, it is also alleged that two persons were made the trustees in the said -2- Dehati Sthapna Nyas on being induced by the petitioner and they are also the accused in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the evidence of Vinay Kumar Jalan, Charted Accountant was recorded in connection with Fodder Scam case, which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit, in which he has admitted to have prepared the forged PAN cards of about 800 persons. Learned counsel placing reliance on the said statement, submitted that Vinay Kumar Jalan himself had prepared PAN cards and accordingly the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has also filed application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., on the basis this evidence against Vinay Kumar Jalan, which is pending in this Court. Making these submissions, learned counsel prays for anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the ED on the other hand has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that the involvement of the petitioner has been found in the case of the Money Laundering also, as the ill gotten money was shown to be invested in Dehati Sthapna Nyas as untainted money, for which, the fictitious donors were created, and PAN cards of those fictitious donors were prepared by this petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that there is stringent provision under Section 45 of the Money Laundering Act, even for granting regular bail and accordingly, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that upon investigation, the involvement of the petitioner has been found, as ill gotten money was shown as untainted money, for which there is allegation against the petitioner to have created fictitious donors and fictitious PAN cards were prepared by the petitioner in the names of those donors.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(H. C. Mishra, J) R.Kumar