The Ahmedabad Court has granted Anticipatory Bail to the Chartered Accountants and other persons accused of Money Laundering and involved in a hawala scam.
The offense alleged under section 406, 420 477- A 120(B) and 114 of IPC read with section 66(D) of the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008 read with section 447 of the Companies Act is registered against applicants-accused.
He has argued that the accused of bail application no.643/2022 is a lady. He has argued that the accusations against applicants are that they have not filed returns. He has argued that in the year 2018 the Income Tax Department had conducted a raid and it was unearthed Havalakand and pursuant thereto, the case under Money Laundering Act was registered by Enforcement Directors in the year 2018 against one Chinese citizen.
It was further argued that in the year 2018 there is no name of the accused and there is no inquiry/investigation pending of the Enforcement Director in the Delhi case. He has argued that charlie peng @ lau sang i.e. Chinese company and the applicants have no any kind of transaction. He has argued that till now no action has been initiated by the Enforcement Directors. He has argued that applicants have produced documentary evidence to show that the same name of the company of present applicants namely Savariya International Pvt. Ltd. is in Delhi. He has argued that the similar name of the company of the applicants is situated at Delhi due to similar name, the action has been initiated against them in lieu of Savariya company of Delhi, the applicants have no concern with the Chinese company. He has argued that there is no nexus and no transaction with the Chinese company.
The State has argued that all these applications are anticipatory bail applications. He has argued that there is a scam of hawala. As per the FIR, the Registrar of the Company is situated at Naranpura. The main agency is the Enforcement Director and it is an important agency, which enters it shows that there is some wrong. He has argued that custodial interrogation of the applicants is requested. He has argued that it is a serious offense. Therefore, no anticipatory bail can be granted and requested to reject the application.
The additional sessions judge, Dilipkumar Dhirajlal Thakkar has held that there are no ingredients of breach of trust or cheating, etc. is not tenable, looking to the accusations leveled against them. There is no need to give detailed findings and elaborate reasons considering the police papers. If a detailed order, then it will adversely affect and prejudice the rights of the parties as well as investigation and it amounts to deciding trial without recording evidence.
The Accused CA Jigneshkumar Pravinbhai Hirapara was represented by Advocate Vishal J Dave and Nipun Singhvi.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
