Virendra Jain v. Enforcement Directorate Delhi Zonal Office Zone II New Delhi

Order dasti.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JANUARY 25, 2018 'vn'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 15th January, 2018 Decided on: 25th January, 2018 + BAIL APPLN. 1113/2017 and Crl. M.A. No. 244/2018 VIRENDRA JAIN ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Vikram Chaudhri, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Harshit Sethi, Mr. S.P. Singh, Mr. Rishi Sehgal and Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocates. versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE DELHI ZONAL OFFICE ZONE II NEW DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC, Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC, Mr. Nitesh Rana, SPP and Ms. Anumita Chandra, Advocate. + BAIL APPLN. 1114/2017 and Crl. M.A. No. 239/2018 SURENDER KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Vikram Chaudhri, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Harshit Sethi, Mr. S.P. Singh, Mr. Rishi Sehgal and Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocates. versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE DELHI ZONEL OFFICE ZONE II NEW DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC, Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC, Mr. Nitesh Rana, SPP and Ms. Anumita Chandra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA BAIL APPLN. 1113/2017 & Crl.M.A.No.244/2018 BAIL APPLN. 1114/2017 & Crl.M.A.No.239/2018 1. By way of the present applications, petitioners Virendra Jain and Surender Kumar Jain, the two brothers seek regular bail in ECIR/01/DLZO- II/2017 dated 11th February, 2017 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short 'PMLA'). 2. The above-noted complaint was lodged after an order dated 28th October, 2013 was passed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs directing investigation by Serious Fraud Investigating Officer (in short 'SFIO') into affairs of the various companies. On the basis of the investigation report a Criminal Complaint No. 57463/2016 dated 29th November, 2016 was filed by SFIO against 31 accused persons including the two petitioners for violation of the provisions under Sections 233/628 read with Sections 211/240 (3) of the Companies Act and under Sections 420/468/477-A/120B IPC before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Central) Special Acts, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 3. These bail applications came up before this Court earlier and vide order dated 20th September, 2017, this Court dismissed the two bail applications. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 20th September, 2017 dismissing the bail applications, the petitioners preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 23rd November, 2017 in a batch of writ petitions and criminal appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared the two further conditions imposed for release on bail in Section 45 (1) of PMLA to be unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and remanded back the matter to the respective Courts which denied the bail, to be heard on merits without application of the twin conditions mentioned in Section 45 of the PMLA. The petitioners, in the meantime also applied before the learned Special Judge, PMLA for grant of bail after passing of the order of the Supreme Court however, the same was declined vide order dated 8th December, 2017. Thus in both the petitions additional applications challenging the order dated 8th December, 2017 passed by the learned Special Judge have also been filed. 5. Case of the prosecution originates from the allegation that M/s Jagat Projects Ltd. laundered its unaccounted income through the set of companies controlled by the petitioners in guise of share subscription money at a huge premium to the tune of ₹64.70 crores during the financial year 2008-09 with the help of a professional Chartered Accountant Rajesh Aggarwal. It is the case of prosecution that the petitioners received ₹1,11,46,000/- as commission @1.80% on the total accommodation entries of ₹64.70 crores. 6. As per the petitioners after the income tax raids were conducted at their residential and business premises on 14th September, 2010 an assessment order was passed by the Assessing Authority, Income Tax Department against M/s Jagat Projects Ltd. opining that the share ca