0

Supreme Court Orders Bench Assignment for Bhosale’s Bail Plea

Blog, Supreme court , , , ,

The Supreme Court of India has taken action in the case of Avinash Bhosale, a prominent Pune-based builder caught in a web of financial allegations. On Tuesday, the apex court directed the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to assign a specific bench to hear Bhosale’s bail application in a money laundering case. This case is intricately linked to the high-profile Yes Bank-DHFL fraud scandal that has shaken India’s financial sector.

The decision came from a vacation bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Manoj Misra and including Justice S.V.N. Bhatti. The court’s intervention was prompted by the repeated adjournments of Bhosale’s bail plea in the Bombay High Court. These delays were attributed to time constraints and the frequent unavailability of opposing counsel, despite the case being listed multiple times as a priority matter.

Bhosale, the founder of the ABIL Group, finds himself at the center of a complex financial investigation. He was initially arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in May 2022, with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) following suit shortly after. The allegations against him are severe, involving the routing of ill-gotten money through his Maharashtra-based real estate companies. The ED’s probe has revealed that Bhosale allegedly received approximately Rs 68.82 crore from DHFL in 2018 under the guise of consultancy charges. However, investigators claim that no actual consultancy services were provided, and the funds were merely proceeds of crime.

The case has seen significant financial implications, with the ED attaching assets worth Rs 164 crore belonging to Bhosale under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. This action underscores the gravity of the allegations and the scale of the suspected financial misconduct.

It’s worth noting that while the Supreme Court has intervened to ensure the assignment of a bench for Bhosale’s bail hearing, it refrained from issuing any directives for an expedited disposal of the plea. The court has left it to Bhosale to approach the assigned bench of the Bombay High Court with any requests for urgent consideration.

This case is part of a larger crackdown on financial irregularities in India’s banking and real estate sectors. The Yes Bank-DHFL fraud case, in particular, has attracted significant attention due to its scale and the involvement of high-profile individuals and institutions. As the legal proceedings unfold, they are likely to have far-reaching implications for corporate governance and financial regulation in India.

 

Written by Maria Therese Syriac.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

0

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Chartered Accountant Accused of Money Laundering 

Blog , , , , ,

Case Title: Manish Kothari (Presently in JC) v. Director of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue Headquarter Investigation Unit 

Date of Decision: 22nd September 2023 

Case Number: Bail Application 2341 of 2023 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma 

 

Introduction 

   

This case revolved around a bail application filed under Section 439 read with Section 167(2) and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by Manish Kothari, the petitioner, who was in judicial custody. The petitioner sought bail in connection with CT Case No. 13/2022-ECR/KLZ0/41/2020 dated 25/09/20 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 

 

Factual Background 

  

The petitioner’s bail application had been previously dismissed by the Special Judge on 09.06.2023. The dismissal was primarily based on the ground that the petitioner failed to meet the threshold of Section 45 of the PMLA. The trial court had held that the petitioner actively assisted co-accused individuals in converting illicit funds into legitimate money and was involved in money laundering. 

 

Additionally, the trial court considered the case a serious economic offense, emphasizing that the petitioner could not be treated differently under the proviso clause of Section 45 of the PMLA, which deals with the share of an accused in the tainted money. The trial court was of the opinion that the petitioner’s role was connected to a substantial amount, approximately Rs. 48 Crores, attributed to the co-accused Anubrata Mondal and his daughter Sukanya Mondal. 

 

Legal Issues 

   

  1. Whether the petitioner meets the criteria for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA? 
  2. Is there sufficient evidence to establish the petitioner’s involvement in money laundering? 
  3. Are the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA admissible as evidence?

 

Contentions of the Petitioner 

   

  • The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and a qualified chartered accountant with no prior criminal record.  
  • The petitioner provided professional services to Anubrata Mondal and his family, primarily related to income tax filing.  
  • The petitioner’s role was limited to filing income tax returns and was not involved in any illegal activities.  
  • The prosecution’s case is based mainly on statements of co-accused individuals, which contain contradictions and should not be relied upon.  
  • The petitioner’s arrest grounds were not supplied to him, violating his rights. 

 

Arguments by the Prosecution 

   

  • The prosecution argued that the petitioner played a significant role in managing the finances of Anubrata Mondal and his family in connection with the proceeds of crime generated from illegal activities like cross-border cattle smuggling.  
  • They alleged that the petitioner helped in projecting tainted money as untainted and participated in the creation of benami assets and companies for laundering the proceeds of crime.  
  • The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of economic offenses and the need to treat them differently. 

 

Observation and Analysis 

   

The court observed that at the bail stage, it should consider the probability of the accused’s guilt and whether they are likely to commit further offenses while on bail. The court should not conduct a detailed examination of evidence or make definitive findings of innocence.  

   

The petitioner’s role as a chartered accountant primarily involved tax-related services. The court noted that the allegations against the petitioner did not involve activities beyond the scope of his profession. The veracity of the prosecution’s case and the shifting of blame by co-accused should be evaluated during the trial. 

 

Decision of the Court 

   

The court granted bail to the petitioner, considering the principles of broad probabilities and the prima facie nature of the case. The bail was granted with specific conditions, including surrendering the passport, providing contact information, and refraining from tampering with witnesses or engaging in criminal activities. 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary 

Click here to view judgment

0

Gujarat High Court grants bail to the respondent-accused stating a person cannot be charged with abetment of suicide for trivial reasons

Blog , ,

Rakeshkumar Laxmichand Jain vs State Of Gujarat on 13 June, 2023

Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13265 of 2019

Facts

By way of this present application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the applicant herein – original complainant had challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.4181 of 2019 by which the learned Judge had released the respondent herein – original accused on bail. Though the matter was filed in the year 2019, the Court had not issued a Notice for 4 years as the applicant had not turned up for any of the proceedings.

The dispute between the applicant and the respondent No.2 was that the applicant executed a deed in favour of the respondent No.2 – original accused and thereby transferred the disputed property in favour of the respondent accused. As per the say of the applicant – original complainant it was the oral understanding between the deceased and the accused that as and when the deceased returned the money, the accused would again enter into the agreement and return the property to the deceased. Though the deceased had returned the money, the respondent-accused had not executed the deed in favour of the deceased and therefore, under such circumstances, the deceased took the untoward step of committing suicide

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the respondent herein – original accused had committed a serious offence and misused the liberty granted at the time of releasing him on bail by the trial Court. He had submitted that the respondent had not complied with the condition of surrendering his passport before the concerned Trial Court. He urged that the present application be allowed and the bail granted to the respondent No.2 – accused be cancelled.

Judgement

The Court graned bail to the respondent and held that, so far as Section 306(abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code was concerned, this cannot be termed as an abatement to commit suicide and therefore, after considering all these aspects, the learned Trial Court had rightly exercised powers while granting bail to the respondent accused and thereafter, no allegation with regard to violation or any breach of peace or tranquility had been made against the respondent accused nor was there any allegation with regard to win over the witnesses or indulge into pressurize the witnesses. In the present case, except for the condition that the respondent accused had not surrendered his passport before the I.O. or before the concerned Court, no other breach is said to have been reported. Even the State had not preferred any application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent accused. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court granted bail to the respondent-accused.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Aadit Shah

Click to view judgement

0

The Gujarat High Court mentions that bail should not be cancelled on the assumption of the accused’s guilt and that the appellate or superior court can consider the correctness of an order granting bail if material facts or crucial circumstances were ignored.

Blog , ,

Case-  Thakor Shivaji Kanaji vs Water Supply And Sewerage Board (C/SCA/14211/2013)

Decided on: 3rd July 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Rajendra M. Sareen
Introduction

The petitioner challenged the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Mehsana, in a reference case related to terminating the petitioner’s services.

According to the facts presented in the text, the petitioner was working as a labourer for the respondent (employer) from 2001 with a monthly salary of Rs. 2000. The petitioner claimed that his services were terminated by the employer on June 30, 2003, without any notice or notice pay, which he considered a violation of specific provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, Mehsana, and after trial, the court awarded the petitioner compensation of Rs. 10,000 in lieu of reinstatement. Both the petitioner and the employer filed separate writ petitions challenging the judgment.

Judgement

The petitioner’s submission argued that the termination was illegal and that the Labour Court should have granted reinstatement instead of compensation. In the alternative, they requested an increase in the prize awarded.

The employer’s submission claimed they did not directly employ the petitioner and were instead employed by a security service provider. They argued that the Labour Court wrongly concluded that the petitioner was working under the employer and that there was no basis for the compensation awarded.

After hearing the arguments from both sides and examining the evidence, the judge concluded that the Labour Court’s finding that the petitioner had worked for 240 days in the last year and that the termination was illegal was justified. The judge also noted that the employer failed to provide documentary evidence to prove that the petitioner was working under a contractor. Therefore, the judge upheld the Labour Court’s decision regarding the termination’s illegality.

However, the judge considered the time since the termination occurred in 2003 and found that reinstatement was not feasible. The judge referred to previous court decisions stating that reinstatement with total back wages is not automatic in cases of illegal termination and that compensation may be appropriate instead. The judge noted that the prize awarded by the Labour Court was inadequate but did not provide a specific ruling on enhancing the payment.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Aadit Shah

click to view judgement

0

The Gujarat High Court mentions that bail should not be cancelled on the assumption of the accused’s guilt and that the appellate or superior court can consider the correctness of an order granting bail if material facts or crucial circumstances were ignored.

Blog , , ,

Case-  Chetnaben W/O Manilal Chaudhari vs State Of Gujarat (R/CR.MA/2110/2016)

Decided on: 22nd June 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak
Introduction

The original complainant makes the application to cancel the bail granted to the accused persons. The accused were granted bail in connection with a case registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the G.P. Act.

Judgement

The court has heard arguments from the counsels representing the respective parties. The counsel for the applicant argues that the bail granted is illegal and arbitrary, while the counsel for the accused states that there have been no incidents or complaints against the accused since their release on bail.

The court examines the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and considers the submissions and facts of the case. It notes that the injured persons are no longer under treatment and are out of danger. Based on these considerations, the court opines that the Trial Court has rightly exercised its power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant bail.

The court then emphasises the distinction between considering a bail application and deciding on a petition for its cancellation. It cites previous court decisions that highlight the grounds for cancellation of bail, such as interference with the administration of justice, evasion of justice, abuse of the concession of bail, possibility of the accused absconding, likelihood of misuse of bail, and tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.

The court refers to various Supreme Court judgments that guide the cancellation of bail, including the need for compelling and overwhelming circumstances to justify cancellation, the examination of relevant material and omission of considerations in the bail grant, and the inability of the court that grant bail to review its order as to give of bail on the grounds of it being unjustified, illegal, or perverse.

The court also mentions that bail should not be cancelled on the assumption of the accused’s guilt and that the appellate or superior court can consider the correctness of an order granting bail if material facts or crucial circumstances were ignored.

Ultimately, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the court concludes that there are no cogent and relevant grounds to cancel the bail granted to the accused. It affirms the reasoning of the Trial Court and dismisses the application for cancellation of bail.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Aadit Shah

Click Here To view Judgement

1 2