Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Heard.

13. Admittedly, the subject ECIR was registered by the respondent on 26.07.2016 against M/s. Pearls Golden Forest Limited (PGF), M/s. Pearl Agrotek Corporation Limited (PACL); and certain directors of PGF and PACL.

27. The last transaction was qua flow of fund from M/s.PACL to M/s.B&B M/s.Mahaveer Infraengineering and M/s.Aravinda Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was further seen downwards. M/s.PACL had transactions of Rs.33.00 crores but whereas the petitioner had transaction worth Rs.60.00 crores with Mr.Dhananjay and he allegedly had no information as to if the amount coming to Mr.Dhananjay was from M/s.PACL.

29. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner lastly referred to annexure P6 to rejoinder to say the direct recipients of M/s.PACL viz. M/s.Bridge and Building Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.; M/s.Mahaveer Infraengineering; M/s.Aravinda Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.; Mr.Ankush P.Yadav; Mr.Amol Borkar; M/s.Synergyone; M/s.Greenfield Estates Partnership; M/s.Sunshine Developers; M/s.Ganraj Properties Pvt. Ltd.; 25 companies, the alleged associates of M/s.PACL; the managing directors, whole time directors, additional directors of M/s.PACL were not named as an accused and various accused granted bail till date.

34. Considering the submission of the petitioner, viz. the petitioner's claim he did not have knowledge if the funds of M/s.PACL were tainted in any manner on account of an order dated 28.11.2003 of Rajasthan High Court in PACL India Ltd. vs. Union of India as also an order dated 26.02.2013 in SEBI vs. PACL India Ltd. in CA 6753-54/2004 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to classify M/s.PACL as CIS but had only directed the SEBI on 22.08.2014 to look into its affairs and that there was no embargo for 18 years upon M/s.PACL on its operation. Admittedly the petitioner was a downstream investor of funds hence his submission he did not knowingly became a party to money laundering cannot be brushed aside lightly. Even otherwise he allegedly was a nominee non-executive director since 11.09.2012 in M/s.DDPL and M/s.Unicorn and prior to 11.09.2012 had nothing to do with these companies; further substantial amount received in the companies of petitioner was returned in the manner alleged above and even Gurmeet Singh's statement would show the petitioner represented the 25 companies were not associated with M/s.PACL. What weigh the statements under Section 50 of PMLA would carry at the end of trial cannot be tested at the stage of bail, more importantly when the intermediary companies were never made an accused in the present ECIR. The ultimate effect of their non-inclusion would be seen at the conclusion of trial. Further considering the order dated 03.09.2020 wherein all remaining co-accused in this ECIR were admitted to bail, this Court has every reason to say the petitioner has passed the test of broad probabilities. Admittedly twin conditions of Section 45 (supra) does not put an absolute restraint on grant of bail or require a positive finding qua guilt.