Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

-

1. The applicant is seeking bail in ECIR No.MBZO-I/03/2020 registered by Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai on 7 th March 2020 for offence under Sections 3 r/w 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (`PMLA Act') culminated in Special Case No.452 of 2020.

2 of 16 3.BA.586.2023.doc

4. The complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement alleges that the applicant was MD/CEO of YES Bank. He misused his position to gain financial benefits for himself and for his family members, through companies controlled by them for sanctioning huge loans through YES Bank. He received kick back over bogus loans extended by YES Bank to DHFL company, which was owned by Kapil Wadhwan and Dheeraj Wadhwan and to its Group companies and those kick back amounts were misused by the applicant for purchasing properties in the name of his family members. The applicant deliberately used, projected and claimed those proceeds of crime as untainted by laundering the same for personal gain. The daughters of the applicant are arrayed as accused No. 2 to 4 in complaint. They were holding 33.33 percent shares each in M/s. DOIT Urban Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd company which is arrayed as accused No. 6 in the complaint. M/s. Morgan Credits Pvt Ltd Company ("MCPL" for short) is impleaded as accused No. 7. The said company was holding 99.99 percent shares of the company. Yes Bank had bought debentures of Rs.3,700 Crores of DHFL company controlled by Kapil Wadhwan and Dheeraj Wadhwan during the 4 of 16 3.BA.586.2023.doc period from April 2018 to June 2018 and thereafter DHFL had paid kick back to applicant under the garb of loan of Rs.600 Crores to accused No. 6. The said loan was given without adequate collateral, though DHFL had not redeemed the amount of Rs.3700 Crores invested in its debentures by YES Bank, and though accused No.6 did not have any business activity to repay the loan. Loan of Rs.750 Crores was fraudulently given in the year 2018 from YES Bank by applicant to M/s. Belief Realtors Pvt. Ltd, which was a group company of R.K.W of Wadhwan's for SRA redevelopment of Bandra Reclamation Project. Deposits of people were used to purchase the debentures, and as such loan was given to accused No. 6 to camouflage. The amounts were further invested through subsidiary companies to divert the proceeds of crime and used for which accused No. 2 to 4 were hand in glove with applicant/accused. Wife of applicant arrayed as accused No.5, is the owner of M/s. RAB Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd., Co. which is impleaded as accused No.8 in the complaint. The said company received a gift of Rs. 87 Crores from applicant. Wife of applicant is house-wife having no source of funds, yet her company made huge investments in its subsidiary companies, which fact was within her knowledge and thereby she had abetted commission of crime of money laundering by the applicant. The applicant illegally obtained money for accused No.6 to 8 in connivance with Kapil Wadhwan, Dheeraj Wadhwan and others by entering into conspiracy in respect to which CBI had registered a crime for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420 of IPC and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) r/w. 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant, Kapil Wadhwan, Dheeraj Wadhwan and Others. This kick back amount was used by applicant and his family members for acquiring various properties and it is projected that the properties are 5 of 16 3.BA.586.2023.doc untainted. The complaint was filed on 6 th May 2020. The Court took cognizance of the complaint vide order dated 23 rd May 2020 for offences under Sections 3 r/w. 4 of the PMLA Act.

(iv) The fetters of Section 45 of PMLA Act are subservient to Article 21 of Constitution of India and considering the current situation and the trend of cases and case laws by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court post the rejection of the application of the Applicant, he deserves to be released on bail, because there is no likelihood of the trial being started in the near future much less completed;

(v) The right to get bail in such cases is completely independent of the right under Section 436A of the Cr.P.C, a right which is recognized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Chowdhury (2022-SCC OnLine-SC-929) even to cases that fall u/s.3 of PMLA Act;

(vi) While granting bail to the applicant in PMLA Special Case No.404 of 2021, the Special Court under PMLA in its order dated 1st April 2023, has discussed the nature and volume of trial of PMLA case. It is observed that as per Section 44(1)(c) of PMLA Act, the case relating to the scheduled offence has to be committed to the said Court, which has taken cognizance of PMLA case. After 7 of 16 3.BA.586.2023.doc commitment both the cases have to be tried simultaneously but separately and not jointly. Even if the PMLA Special Court is one, there may be number of cases relating to scheduled offence, which have to be committed and tried simultaneously with PMLA special case. There are so many cases which have been pending in the said court to show that for a single PMLA case, there are multiple cases relating to the scheduled offence.