IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6583 of 2017 ---- Surya Sonal Singh, Son of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, Resident of Flat No. B/801, Hariom Tower, Residency, Circular Road, P.O. P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi. ....Petitioner Versus Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 6th Floor, Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market, P.O. & P.S. Khan Market, New Delhi-110003. .....Opposite Party ---- Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, Advocate ----- 04/7.9.2017 Heard the parties. The petitioner is an accused in connection with ECIR-02/PAT/09/ AD(B) registered for the offence under sections 3 and 4 of the P.M.L.A. Act. Petitioner had earlier prayed for grant of grant of anticipatory bail before this Court, which was rejected in A.B.A. No. 4278 2016, against which the petitioner had moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the anticipatory bail application was disposed of on 19.7.2017. Prosecution story in brief is that Kamlesh Kumar Singh, who was a Minister in the Government of Jharkhand, while holding the post of a public servant had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is alleged that an investigation was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation in relation to a schedule offence and chargesheet was submitted against Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh and his wife Smt. Madhu Singh under section 9 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 13(2) and 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with the allegation that the accused Kamlesh Kumar Singh had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.5,46.07,597 during the period March 2005 to July 2009. Enforcement Directorate had lodged a case vide ECIR/02/PAT/09/AD(B) under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It is also alleged that after conducting an investigation, a complaint was filed under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 only against Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh and cognizance was taken on 14.2.2011 under section 4 of the said Act. -2- Investigation was carried out with respect to the income and properties acquired by Surya Sonal Singh, present petitioner and it was revealed that he had acquired moveable and immovable properties worth Rs.1,64,62,567/-. During investigation, it was revealed that the properties were acquired by the accused- Surya Sonal Singh, present petitioner, after taking unsecured loan of Rupees One Crore from his sister Ankita Singh and from business income of Rs.11,71,141/-. It is alleged that Surya Sonal Singh was examined under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and he had stated that about the loan taken from his sister, it was utilised for acquisition of properties at Bipul Trade Tower, Gurgaon. Allegation has been levelled that the loan amount of Rupees One Crore was not reflected in the Income tax Returns of Surya Sonal Singh. It has further been alleged that the statement of Ankita Singh was recorded under section 50 of the Act wherein she had confirmed of giving loan to her brother of Rupees One Crore in two installments of Rs.50 lacs each. Investigation also revealed that the said loan was never reflected in Income tax Returns of Ankita Singh. In view of the statement of Ankita Singh, accused Narendra Mohan Singh, petitioner in B.A. No. 6582 of 2017, was summoned and after appearance he admitted that he had advanced a loan of Rs.1,26,63.000 to his wife namely Ankita Singh. It was concluded on examination of the accused persons as well as the documents that the deposits in cash made in Income tax Return have been suppressed intentionally so as to disguise the source of the funds. Since explanation submitted by the accused persons were not satisfactory, a supplementary complaint was filed against the petitioner and other accused persons.
2. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that petitioner was never made an accused in the main offence by the C.B.I. It has been submitted that merely on account of the allegation of undisclosed source of Rupees One Crore, which was given by Ankita Singh to her brother-Surya Sonal Singh, present petitioner, has been implicated for having taken the loan from his sister Smt. Ankita Singh and the same was never disclosed in the I.T. Returns. It has also been submitted that adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act had clearly held that the Investigating Officer had acted over enthusiastically and had brushed aside the statement of Ankita Singh as well as Narendra -3- Kumar Singh, petitioner in B.A. No. 6582 of 2017. Learned senior counsel submits that in the same order, it has been indicated that the Income tax Returns also contained the balance sheet and neither the C.B.I. nor the Income tax Department had taken adverse note of the acquisition of the properties made by Surya Sonal Singh, present petitioner. Learned senior counsel further submits that the properties of Surya Sonal Singh, present petitioner, which were provisionally attached, were released by virtue of the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Learned senior counsel also submits that so called tainted amount cannot be said to be Proceeds of Crime when the adjudicating authority has itself rejected the contention of the Investigating Officer. Learned senior counsel submits that it was Kamlesh Kumar Singh, who was alleged to have committed a schedule offence but the petitioner was never involved in commission of such offence. Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the Income tax Return of Ankita Singh, which carries a balance sheet, which reveals that unsecured loan was taken from Narendra Mohan Singh, petitioner in B.A. No. 6582 of 2017, for an amount of Rs.1,22,31.000 and an amount of Rupees One Crore was advanced to Surya Sonal Singh, present petitioner. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the information obtained from the Income tax Department under the Right to Information Act to substantiate his contention that balance sheet was indeed filed. It has been stated that only on assumption and presumption, petitioner has been implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that during investigation, petitioner had fully cooperated and had also appeared before the agency for recording his statement. Learned senior counsel has also referred to Section 41 A of Code of Criminal Procedure and has submitted that the entire circumstances enumerated above would lead to an inference that the petitioner since having cooperated in the investigation and since the complaint has been filed by the Enforcement Director, he deserves to be released on bail. Reference has also been made to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and much stress has been given by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner regarding the tenor of the order, which according to him, clearly discloses that the petitioner should be released on bail. Concluding his argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the orders passed in B.A. -4- No. 2703 of 2012 and B.A. No. 3602 of 2014, in which Kamlesh Kumar Singh @ Kamlesh Singh and his wife Madhu Singh have been granted bail by this Court. It has, therefore, been prayed that since no case is made out against the petitioner as the amount of Rupees One Crore has been well accounted for and the petitioner being in custody he be directed to be released on bail. Countering the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has referred to the supplementary complaint and has submitted that the petitioner had never disclosed about the cash deposits only to disguise the source of the funds. He has further submitted that reflections made in the Income tax Return do not disclose the actual picture and the transactions, which have been shown, are only to mislead the investigation. It has also been submitted that unsecured loan of Rupees One Crore, which was taken by Surya Sonal Singh, present petitioner, from the wife of co accused Narendra Mohan Singh, has never been disclosed and therefore the cash flow statement is not reliable. Learned counsel submits that statement of bank account of the petitioner and other accused persons shows a dubious pattern as the loan amount had neither been reflected in the Income tax Return of the petitioner or in the Income tax Return of Ankita Singh. Learned counsel submits that the entire amounts were from the Proceeds of Crime and being unaccounted for and the petitioner having failed to disclose the source of the amount, which had been taken as a loan from Ankita Singh, does prove the involvement of the petitioner and in such circumstances, therefore, the prayer for bail of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. From the allegations made in the supplementary complaint and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the entire crux of the criminal complaint so far as this petitioner and other accused Ankita Singh as well as Narendra Mohan Singh is concerned, is with respect to unaccounted amount of more than a crore, which was given as a loan by Narendra Mohan Singh to Ankita Singh, who in turn, had given a loan of Rupees One Crore to her brother Surya Sonal Singh, present petitioner. The supplementary complaint has put much reliance on the fact that Income tax Return did not reflect the loan amount. However, the balance sheet, which -5- has been appended to the Income tax Return for the assessment year 2009-2010 does suggest that Ankita Singh had obtained unsecured loan of Rs.1,22,31.000 from her husband and had given as a loan an amount of Rupees One Crore to co-accused-Surya Sonal Singh, present petitioner. The veracity of the balance sheet has sufficiently been substantiated by the information received under the Right to Information Act and the same also finds mention in the order of the adjudicating authority at clause 8.12. The adjudicating authority on proper assessment of the documentary evidence as well as the statement of the accused recorded under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act had released the property attached with respect to all the live units. It is also to be noted herein that the petitioner or for that matter other accused Narendra Mohan Singh and Ankita Singh were never made accused in the main offence, which was investigated by the C.B.I. Thus, the allegation made in the supplementary complaint seems to have been sufficiently diluted by virtue of the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Petitioner also seems to have fully cooperated in the investigation and his statement was also recorded. The investigation having been completed, supplementary complaint has already been filed by the opposite party. The petitioner is in custody and the main accused persons namely Kamlesh Kumar Singh @ Kamlesh Singh and his wife Madhu Singh have been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 2703 of 2012 and B.A. No. 3602 of 2014 respectively. In view of the circumstances, enumerated above, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in connection with ECIR-02/PAT/09/AD(B). (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Rakesh/