- (1.) This application has been filed for grant of bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1 of 2009, corresponding to Enforcement Case Information Report-E.C.I.R./02/PAT/09/AD registered under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Money Laundering Act for short).
(2.) The prayer for bail of the Petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court on 24.05.2010 vide B.A. No. 823 of 2010, inter alia observing as follows; .... It appears that a complaint has been filed by the Assistant Director-II of Directorate of Enforcement under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before the Special Judge Ranchi (under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act) against the Petitioner Vikash Sinha. It further appears that information was filed under the scheduled offences of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, i.e. under Sections 420, 423, 424, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 7, 10 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and now for the offence under the Money Laundering Act punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against Sri Madhu Koda, Shri Kamlesh Singh, Shri Bhanu Pratap Shahi, Shri Bandhu Tirkey, Shri Binod Sinha, Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, Shri Vikas Sinha, Shri Sanjay Chaudhary and Shri Dhananjay Chaudhary. The investigation against this Petitioner was complete and thereafter complaint was filed before the Special Judge, Ranchi (under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act), stating therein that the investigation of the case against other accused persons was going on. Accordingly, leave, as prayed, for filing further complaint against other accused persons was granted by the Special Judge, Ranchi (under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act). So far as the Petitioner is concerned, the learned Special Judge Ranchi (under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act), on the basis of the complaint as well as the materials collected during the course of investigation, took cognizance against the Petitioner under Section 3 of the Money Laundering Act, 2002 punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. The allegations made in the complaint, in short, are that the accused persons in collusion and connivance with each other acquired huge properties. Some of the accused persons were even public servants in the State of Jharkhand. The accused persons accumulated moveable and immoveable properties and assets not only in India but in abroad also. Those properties were acquired otherwise and were not included in their disclosed assets. Their criminal acts indicated misappropriation of public money in the capacity of public servants. One of the co-accused Binod Sinha is the own brother of this Petitioner Vikash Kumar Sinha. It is alleged that this Petitioner jointly with his brother Binod Sinha acquired the properties and assets; the details of which have been given in the complaint. .... The present case is a very sensitive case, in which high profile persons like Ex. Chief Minister of the State is one of the accused. The allegation is that he along with other accused persons in collusion and connivance with each other named in the report have acquired huge moveable and immoveable properties and assets not only in India but in abroad also. The investigation against other accused are still in progress and, therefore, in my view if the Petitioner is released on bail, he may certainly try to influence the further investigation and he may try to tamper with the evidence or may try to destroy the evidence. .... Considering the gravity of the offence and nature of the crime committed by the accused persons as well as for the reasons stated herein above, in my view the Petitioner does not deserve bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the Petitioner is rejected and this application is dismissed....
(3.) Against the said order, Petitioner moved before Hon'ble Supreme Court vide S.L.P. (Cr) No. 5084 of 2010, which was dismissed on 17.09.2010, with the following order. Heard learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as well as learned ASG appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the Petitioner to renew his bail application after three months before the appropriate court.;