Directorate Of Enforcement vs Ratul Puri
2020 Latest Caselaw 191 Del

$~1
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Reserved on: 13.12.2019
                                       Pronounced on. 14.01.2020

+     CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 & Crl.M.A.42700/2019
      DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT                           ..... Petitioner
                         Through       Mr.K.M. Nataraj, ASG with Mr.Amit
                                       Mahajan, CGSC

                         versus

      RATUL PURI                                         ..... Respondent
                         Through       Mr.Kapil Sibbal, Mr.Abhishek Manu
                                       Singhvi, Mr.Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advs.
                                       with Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.Mudit
                                       Jain, Mr.Ayush Jindal, Ms.Barkha
                                       Rastogi, Mr.Deepanshu Choithani,
                                       Mr.Vafee Haider, Mr.Varun Chopra,
                                       Mr.Sumer Bopari, Mr.Ansh Kukreja,
                                       Mr.Yugant Sharma, Mr.Hardik
                                       Sharma, Mr.Akshay Gadeock,
                                       Mr.Rudrashish Bhardwaj & Mr.Sahil
                                       Goyal, Advs.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                                  JUDGMENT

1. Vide the present petition , the petitioner seeks direction thereby to set

aside the order dated 02.12.2019 passed by Ld. Special Judge, PMLA in

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 1 of 22 ECIR/DLZO/15/2014/AD(VM) granting bail to the Respondent and

consequentially cancel the same.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.02.2013, Ministry of Defence,

Govt. of India filed a complaint to CBl, New Delhi for registration of case

and to investigate the unethical dealings of M/s Finmeccanica, Italy and

payment of kickbacks to influence the contract for procurement of 12

VVIP/VIP Helicopters by Indian Air Force, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of

India from M/s Agusta Westland International Limited, UK, a subsidiary of

M/s Finmeccanica, Italy. Accordingly, CBl registered a case FIR vide RC

No. RC- 217 2013 A 0003 dated 12.03.2013 for commission of offences

punishable u/s 120-B r/w 420 of IPC and Sections 7,8,9,12, 13(2) r/w

13(l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since the said offences are

scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)

and since the case involved generation of proceeds of crime, ECIR

DLZO/15/2014/AD(VM) was registered on 03.07.2014 and investigation

was initiated by the Petitioner department. On 20.11.2014, a Prosecution

Complaint arraying Gautam Khaitan, Ritu Khaitan, Gerosa Carlo Valentino

Ferdinand, Haschke Guido Ralph & M/s Aeromatrix Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

accused for commission of offences u/s 3, punishable u/s 4 of PMLA 2002

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 2 of 22 was filed and cognizance was taken by the Ld. Special Judge. On

10.06.2016, 1st supplementary complaint was filed wherein Christian

Michel James, Media Exim Pvt. Ltd., R.K. Nanda and J.B. Subramanian

were arrayed as Accused for money laundering and the Ld. Special Judge

was pleased to issue process against the Accused on 30.11.2016, while

further investigation in the instant case continued.

3. Thereafter, on 13.09.2017 2nd Supplementary complaint arraying

Shivani Rajiv Saxena, Matrix Holding Pvt. Ltd. and UHY Saxena Dubai as

Accused for the offence of money laundering was filed. Thereafter, after

considering the material available on record and the submissions of the

Petitioner, the Ld. Special Judge was pleased to issue process against the

Accused on 19.09.2017 and investigation in the instant case continued.

4. On 17.07.2018 3rd Supplementary Prosecution complaint arraying

various other Accused was filed and process was issued against the said

Accused on 24.07.2018, while further investigation continued.

5. The Accused Christian Michel James was extradited from the UAE on

04.12.2018 and certain crucial aspects of the case came to light after his

arrival, Thereafter, Rajiv Saxena was deported from the UAE on 31.01.2019

and further investigation revealed certain crucial aspects of the case.

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019                                                   3 of 22
 6.    Accordingly,    on   04.04.2019,    4th   Supplementary    Prosecution

Complaint was filed before the Ld. Special Judge against various Accused

persons, on which process was issued, while further investigation continued.

7. Thereafter, 5th Supplementary Prosecution Complaint was filed before

the Ld. Special Judge on 22.05.2019 against various Accused persons, on

which process was issued, while further investigation continued, including

against the Respondent herein.

8. Further case of the petitioner department is that prior to the

deportation of Rajiv Saxena, though there were apprehensions of the

involvement of the Respondent herein, summons were served on the

Respondent to investigate into the matter and primarily, documents were

sought in this regard. Once the role of the Respondent became apparent post

the deportation of Rajiv Saxena and the arrest of Sushen Mohan Gupta, he

was summoned to join investigation. On 26.07.2019, though he appeared

before the Petitioner, however, he chose to leave the said proceedings

midway.

9. Mr. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf

of the petitioner department submitted that it is a matter of record that the

respondent was posed few difficult questions during his interrogation and

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 4 of 22 informed that he was required to be taken to the Income Tax Department for

cloning of his phone data. The Respondent thereafter became untraceable

and despite the best efforts of the Petitioner, his whereabouts could not be

ascertained. The very next day, an Anticipatory Bail Application was moved

by the Respondent and he then appeared before the Petitioner under the

protective umbrella of an interim Anticipatory Bail order. Thereafter, the

Respondent further failed to join investigation and did not comply with the

summons dated 28.07.2019, 30.07.2019, 31.07.2019. Sh. Navin Kapila, in

response to the summons, sent an email stating that Respondent cannot join

investigation, being busy in his bail matter. Once the Anticipatory Bail

Application of the Respondent was dismissed by the Ld. Special Judge

(PMLA) vide order dated 06.08.2019, he again became incommunicado and

did not comply with the summons dated 06.08.2019 and 07.08.2019. In light

of such a conduct, Ld. Special Judge (PMLA) was pleased to issue NBWs

against him on 09.08.2019. Thereafter, the Respondent was granted interim

protection from arrest by this Court on 14.08.2019, which protection stood

vacated on 20.08.2019 and consequently his application was dismissed,

wherein the this Court duly noted the influence of the Respondent on the

witnesses. In the meantime, the Respondent was arrested in case

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 5 of 22 ECIR/07/DZCR/2019 on 19.09.2019 by the petitioner's department. Having

blatantly evaded the process of law, the Respondent thereafter tried to create

a facade of alleged cooperation by surrendering before the Ld. Special Judge

(PMLA), only after his arrest in the said case, which fact of surrender after

arrest in another case is duly recorded in the order dated 29.08.2019 passed

by the Ld. Special Judge (PMLA). During the said period, the Application

for cancellation of the NBWs against the Respondent was also dismissed by

the Ld. Special Judge (PMLA) vide order dated 21.08.2019. Thereafter, the

Respondent was arrested by the Petitioner in the instant case on 04.09.2019.

Even after his period of ED remand, the Respondent was interrogated in

Tihar Jail on 22.10.19, 23.10.19, 31.10.19 after seeking permission from the

Ld. Special Judge.

10. Thereafter, 6th Supplementary Prosecution Complaint was filed by the

Petitioner on 02.11.2019 and the Ld. Special Judge was pleased to issue

process against the Respondent and others vide order dated 02.11.2019,

while further investigation continued. The said Prosecution Complaint duly

highlighted the role of the Respondent in the commission of the offence of

money laundering and further investigation is still ongoing.

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 6 of 22

11. Learned Additional Solicitor General further argued that clinching

evidence has come on record to show the complicity of the Respondent in

the instant case. Investigation has revealed that the Respondent has made all

possible attempts to influence/intimidate the witnesses in the investigation

and hamper the investigation of the instant case, apart from the

destruction/disposal of crucial evidence. The Respondent made his wife take

a flimsy ground of not joining the investigation citing the medical condition

of the father of the Respondent, which is further fortified by the records

collected during investigation of the case. He further made her lie about their

proximity and asked her not to join investigation. Moreover, he took away

the i-Pad of his wife, which is believed to contain crucial leads in the case,

only to derail the investigation. The Respondent sent an email dated

15.07.2019 on behalf of his father stating that his father is bed ridden and

cannot come to the office of the ED. At the same time, his father was in

Dehradun celebrating his birthday. The Respondent, with the active aid of

Niamat Bakshi, is involved in the hiding/destruction of crucial evidence of

the case and had got burnt certain documents. The written instructions for

the same apart from the ashes of the burnt documents have been recovered,

which has, also been corroborated by the evidence adduced in this regard.

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 7 of 22

12. Further, investigation has revealed that Rajiv Saxena was influenced

by the Respondent not to disclose that the payments received by him from

Global Services FZE, and not to give any information/documents/ statement

linking his father or his uncle in any matter. He further

influenced/pressurized him to give selective/no information to the Petitioner.

However, investigation has revealed that the Respondent was in touch with

Rajiv Saxena, directly and also through his lawyers. Further, Sandeep

Narang was approached by the Respondent and all attempts were made to

influence him to not make the full and true disclosures before the

Petitioner's department.

13. Mr. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General further submitted that

reliable intelligence inputs have further confirmed that there are a large

number of documents/material related to the Respondent, which have been

moved around in bags, which are believed to be containing crucial leads in

the case and are still hidden, and the Petitioner is taking all possible steps to

recover the same.

14. Further submitted that investigation has revealed that the claims and

stands of the Respondent taken at different points of time are a mere

eyewash to thwart the investigation of the case. Respondent has undertaken

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 8 of 22 to provide the relevant documents and information at various point of time,

but the same have not been received till date. His answers to basic question

were contrary to the records of the case. One such instance of the same

pertains to the email ids [email protected] and

[email protected], wherein the Respondent denied any

association with the said email ids, but when confronted with emails

wherein his footprints were evident, he recalls such transactions, while

conveniently ignoring the other transactions. The said emails belong to the

Respondent, as has been revealed by various independent sources and forms

part of the Prosecution complaint and the same have been used in laundering

the proceeds of crime.

15. Further, the Respondent has deleted the emails and the email ids of

the nokia Samsung accounts, to thwart the investigation herein. During

investigation, another email id of the Respondent came to light; i.e.

[email protected], which email id has also been deleted on 14.02.2019,

post the deportation of Rajiv Saxena, in a clear attempt to thwart the

effective investigation of the case. It has also revealed that the Respondent

has deleted another email id [email protected] on 23.04.2019 after the

searches conducted by the Income Tax Department. Thus, there are reasons

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 9 of 22 to believe that the same have been self-deleted to thwart the investigation of

the case by destroying the whole data, however, all efforts are being made to

procure access to the same,

16. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the Ld. Special

Judge has granted bail to the Respondent, against the settled principles of

law by not considering the contentions of the Petitioner. Thus, Ld. Special

Judge has grossly erred in granting bail to the Respondent in the facts and

circumstances of the case. The Legislature, by virtue of Section 45 PMLA

has placed stringent conditions on the grant of bail in offences concerning

money laundering. The said twin conditions only highlight the gravity of the

offence and the menace sought to be curbed. By mechanically granting bail

to the Respondent, the Ld. Special Judge has failed to appreciate the object

of the PMLA. The non-applicability of Section 45 of PMLA, as adjudged by

the Ld. Special Judge, is misplaced, in light of the Amendment of 2018 and

2019 to Section 45 of PMLA. While upholding the constitutionality of such

provisions, one of the most important parameters has been the satisfaction of

the twin tests of classification. A perusal of the analogous provisions in

other statutes, it would be demonstrated that in all such statutes imposing the

twin conditions for grant of bail, the said conditions existed for offences

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 10 of 22 punishable under the Act. Having addressed the said issue by way of the

Amendment, the Legislature has brought the PMLA in consonance with the

other Acts. Accordingly, keeping in mind the object of the Act and

eliminating the discrimination being created because of the ambiguity, the

Legislature has brought the said Section in consonance with the judgement

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Amendment as such stands to be

legal. Further, keeping in mind the object of the Act and the huge amount of

tainted money being laundered, the reasonable nexus is duly established.

17. It is further argued that Ld. Special Judge failed to consider the

factors that are relevant for the granting of bail. The role played by the

Accused persons and the gravity of the offence are relevant factors to be

considered while granting bail. The Ld. Special Judge completely lost sight

of the fact that the Respondent was linked to the laundering of the proceeds

of crime generated in the case. Moreover, investigation is at a very crucial

stage where the role of his accomplices/aides is being examined to derive

the end use and the last mile connectivity of the money trail. Certain

witnesses who have been identified, both in India and abroad, are in the

process of being examined. Thus, there is a every likelihood that the

Respondent may influence the witnesses, tamper with the evidence and

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 11 of 22 hamper with the investigation of the said case, especially in light of his past

conduct. There is further a reasonable apprehension of crucial evidence

being destroyed, as seen by the past conduct of the Respondent, which facts

are in his personal knowledge.

18. Accordingly, in view of above facts, the learned Additional Solicitor

General argued that investigation in the present case is still going on. The

release of the Respondent on bail would adversely affect further

investigation to unearth the deep-rooted multi-layered conspiracy and to

identify all his accomplices and aides involved in the instant case,

especially keeping in mind the nature of the case, severity of allegations and

voluminous evidence on record. Certain witnesses have been identified are

being examined. Thus, there is reasonable apprehension that he will try to

liquidate and shift the proceeds of crime to different foreign

jurisdiction/entities to destroy the money trail; apart from continuing to be

involved in the commission of the offence of money laundering. There is a

reasonable apprehension of his tampering with the evidence sought in those

Letter Rogatories (LRs), the facts of which are in his personal knowledge.

19. On the other hand, Mr.Kapil Sibbal with Mr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi,

learned Senior Advocates appeared on behalf of respondent submitted that

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 12 of 22 as per the case of the prosecution a contract for supply of 12 VVIP/non

VVIP, helicopters was awarded to M/s Agusta Westland International Ltd..

UK for an amount of Euro 556.262 million (3726.96 Crores) and an

agreement to this effect was executed on 08.02.2010 between Ministry of

Defence, Government of India and M/s Agusta Westland international Ltd.

Co-accused S.P. Tyagi, during his tenure as Chief of Air Staff, during the

period 2005 to 2007, accorded approval and with his approval, Air force

conceded to service ceiling for VVIP helicopters to 4500 meters from its

earlier stand of 6000 meters as mandatory operational requirements, in order

to allow M/s Agusta Westland Intentional Ltd. into fray, though M/s Agusta

Westland International Ltd., was disqualified in 2002. Since then, it was

making attempt to enter the competition. It is also alleged that 3 cousins of

Air chief Marshal S.P.Tyagi entered into a consultancy contract with M/s

Gordian Services Sari, Tunisia in the year 2004. Mr. Bruno Spagnolini of

M/s Agusta Westland International Ltd. started paying kickbacks to Mr.

Guido Ralph Haschke and Mr. Carlo Valentino Ferdinando Gerosa under the

guise of several consultancy contract executed between M/s Agusta

Westland International Ltd. and M/s Gordian Services. The proceeds of

crime was also routed through co-accused Christian Michel James. Later on,

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 13 of 22 money was also transferred to India through different companies and co-

accused Gautam Khaitan had played vital role in facilitating transfer of

illegal gratification to India.

20. Learned senior counsels submitted that the role of the

respondent/accused has surfaced after deportation of Rajiv Saxena on

31.01.2019 from UAE and the arrest of Sushen Mohan Gupta and his

concerned foreign entities, received proceeds of crime directly from

Interstellar Technologies Limited and he had received funds from both the

chains of money laundering involved in the present case. The accused, using

the guise of shell companies in the name of others, accumulated proceeds of

crime, which have been parked and later laundered to reach the desired

beneficiaries including the accused amongst other. As per ED, the proceeds

of crime has been deposited in the accounts of different companies owned

by accused. As per allegations, the respondent Ratul Puri is a key link to

unearth the modus operandi adopted by-other accused persons and to

determine last mile connectivity of the proceeds of crime in the instant case.

As per ED, the diary of Sushen Mohan Gupta and emails recovered from

Rajiv Saxena shows that accused was in receipt of proceeds of crime.

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 14 of 22

21. Further argued that petitioner/Enforcement Directorate filed its main

complaint in November, 2014 and thereafter six Supplementary Complaints

have been filed. However, the respondent has been named as an accused in

the 6th supplementary complaint. The CBI has filed a final report in the

above mentioned FIR and the respondent has not been named as an accused

person. All persons who have been named as accused persons by the

Enforcement Directorate in the present case are either on bail or have never

been arrested.

22. Moreover, the respondent appeared before the petitioner firstly on

07.02.2019 and since then he has been joining investigation as and when

called and has been interrogated thoroughly and large number of questions

have been put to him to answer and his statement run into more than 1200

pages and he joined investigation for more than 27 times. He has cooperated

during investigation and has stated the truth on oath, before the Enforcement

Directorate, when he was examined by the petitioner department. The

respondent neither refused to answer any question nor evaded thereto.

Statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 50 of PMLA are to be

tested during trial and are not credible evidence to deny bail. The petitioner

cannot rely upon the statement of co-accused Rajiv Saxena recorded under

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 15 of 22 Section 50 (2) and (3) PMLA, 2002. The petitioner has itself has filed an

application for cancellation of bail of Rajiv Saxena on the ground that he has

not disclosed the true and correct facts during investigation of the matter.

The petitioner itself is not relying upon the statement of the said witness

then how the statement of the said witness can be considered/relied upon for

the purpose of cancelling the bail of the respondent. In addition, the

statement recorded under Section 50 of PMLA is inadmissible if the same is

recorded after arrest of the accused person. Even otherwise, disclosure

statement of co-accused persons cannot be used against the respondent as

their statements are inadmissible against him.

23. It is further argued that accused is not involved in dealing with

proceeds of crime and the entire case of the petitioner is based on false

allegations. The respondent has provided documents to the petitioner and

since the supplementary complaint has already been filed qua respondent

herein and statement of witnesses have already been recorded, there is no

chance of tampering of evidence or influencing witnesses on the part of the

respondent. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to link the accused with the

proceeds of crime as Excel Sheets provided by Rajiv Saxena are not

admissible in evidence and are easily modifiable document. The Casana

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 16 of 22 Sheets, prepared by an auditor also cannot be relied upon in the absence of

bank statements of M/s Global Services FZE/Global Oil Services. The

witnesses examined by petitioner has given contradictory statements and

thus rightly not relied upon by the learned Special Judge. There is nothing

on record to show that proceeds of crime were from Interstellar

Technologies Ltd. and travelled to respondent's company. The allegations

made against the respondent in the complaint filed by petitioner are

contradictory and self destructive and are not worthy of reliance. The

petitioner has filed incomplete supplementary complaint just to defeat the

right of bail of accused under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., however, not relied

upon by the learned Special Judge.

24. In addition to above, respondent is having roots in society and is an

Indian resident. There is no apprehension of his absconding. There is no

likelihood of accused tampering with evidence. He is an alumni of Carnegie

Mellon University, the Pittsburg bases global research university with a

Bachelors Degree in Computer Engineer, Mathematics and Computer

Sciences. He is the Chairman of Board of Directors of Hindustan Power

Projects. He has permanent abode in Delhi and is living with his family.

There is no possibility of accused tampering with the evidence or

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 17 of 22 influencing the witness. He has about 21000 employees working in his

organization. The exposure of the organization towards bank is to the tune of

about Rupees Nine Thousand Crores which are being regularly serviced

without any default.

25. Moreover, the respondent satisfies the triple test for bail and,

accordingly, learned Special Judge, has rightly granted the bail to the

respondent. The respondent is not a flight risk as he has roots in the society

and there is no apprehension of influencing the witnesses as their statements

have already been recorded and are part of judicial record and also there is

no apprehension of tampering of evidence / documents as the documents

have already been collected by multiple agencies.

26. In addition to above, the twin conditions of Section 45 (1) of PMLA

are not applicable in view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

"Nikesh Tarachand Shah's case, AIR 2017 SC 5500 wherein the Apex

Court observed that "the twin conditions of Section 45 (1) of PMLA are

violative of constitutional provisions and struck down the said twin

conditions of Section 45 (1) PMLA." Further submitted that offence under

Section 3 & 4 of PMLA is offence punishable upto 07 years in view of

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 18 of 22 specific guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "

Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar" (2014) 8 SCC 273.

27. To strengthen his arguments, learned senior counsel for respondent

has relied upon the cases of L K Advani & Ors vs CBI: 1997 JCC 294; CBI

vs V. C, Shukla & Ors: 1998 (3) SCC 410; Common Cause and ors vs.

UOI and Ors.: rendered in WP (Civil) No. 505/2015 dated 11.01.2017;

Mohd. Akbar vs State of Chhattisgarh: 2006 SCC Online CHH-30;

Sameer M. Bhujbai vs Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement in

bail application no. 286/2018 and other cases decided by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and the other High Courts. Hence, there is no ground in the

present petition to interfere in the impugned order whereby the learned

Special Judge has granted bail after completion of around 100 days in

judicial custody.

28. In case of Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana: (1995) 1 SCC

349, it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "very cogent and

overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the

cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking the grounds of

cancellation of bail, broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the

due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 19 of 22 due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in

any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on

the record of the possibility of accused absconding is yet another reason

justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be

cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any

supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair

trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of

bail during the trial."

29. Similar situation came up before this Court in case of Gayatri Devi

Vs. State & Ors. 2011 (126) DRJ 15 whereby this Court rejected the plea

of the petitioner therein and not interfered with the impugned order whereby

bail was granted after the respondent remained in jail for 45 days.

30. It is not in dispute that there are 46 accused in the present case and 25

accused in abroad in different countries. Out of 25 accused, 60% to 70% are

in foreign countries. Letter Rogatories (LRs) have already been issued.

Investigation in the present case started in the year 2014. Accused No. 46

Jaspreet Ahuja is in abroad.

31. Thus more than five years are over and the investigation in the present

case is still going on. Out of 46 accused, 25 accused are in abroad in

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 20 of 22 different parts of country. Thus, the investigation may continue for further

substantial years. The respondent has already undergone around 100 days in

judicial custody and has been interrogated substantially during the remand

of petitioner and in judicial custody.

32. It is settled that once bail granted should not be cancelled in a

mechanical manner without considering any supervening circumstances

which is not conducive to fair trial. It cannot be cancelled on a request from

the side of the complainant/investigating agency unless and until it is

established that the same is being misused and it is no longer conducive in

the interest of justice to allow the accused any further to remain on bail. No

doubt, the bail can be cancelled only in those discerning few cases where it

is established that a person to whom the concession of bail has been granted

is misusing the same. However, all those facts are missing in the present

case.

33. It is also not in dispute that in the present case out of 46 accused, only

5 accused have been arrested and four accused are on bail. Only accused 35

Christian Michel James is in judicial custody who was extradited from

abroad.

CRL.M.C. 6466/2019 21 of 22

34. It is pertinent to mention here that learned Solicitor General during

arguments handed over some documents, however, not in the sealed cover

and without furnishing the same to the counsel for the respondent. Since

these documents are not in sealed cover and not furnished to the counsel for

the respondent, therefore, this Court has not perused the same and not relied

upon.

35. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law

discussed above, I am of the view that there is no ground made in the

present petition to interfere with the impugned order 02.12.2019 whereby

learned Special Judge has granted bail to the respondent.

36. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Crl.M.A.42700/2019

37. In view of the order passed in the present petition, this application has

been rendered infructuous and is accordingly, disposed of.

                                                 (SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
                                                        JUDGE
JANUARY 14, 2020
ms




CRL.M.C. 6466/2019                                                    22 of 22