R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement.
(2.) THIS application has been filed for grant of bail in connection with complaint case arising out of ECIR/02/PAT/09/AD (suppl.) lodged against the petitioner for commission of the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which is punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. It appears that on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Rajiv Sharma, Vigilance P.S case no. 9 of 2009 was registered under Sections 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against Madhu Koda, Ex -Chief Minister of Jharkhand and three Ex -Ministers. Subsequently, C.B.I under the order of this Court took up the investigation and registered a case as R.C. No. 58 of 2009. After investigation of the case, C.B.I submitted charge sheet against Madhu Koda, Binod Kumar Sinha, Sanjay Choudhary under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 9 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 putting charges that the then Chief Minister who was also Mines Minister on being influenced by the co -accused granted mining lease by abusing his official position to M/s. Coal Industries Private Limited and received illegal gratification. At the same time, Enforcement Directorate also lodged Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) no. 2 of 2009 under Sections 420, 423, 424 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7, 10 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against nine persons, who had been made accused by the C.B.I but not against this petitioner. Subsequently, in the aforesaid ECIR case, a complaint was lodged against this petitioner under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act stating therein that it does transpire from the investigation done so far that Binod Kumar Sinha, Bikash Sinha, Sanjay Choudhary and Dhananjay Choudhary played a pivotal role not only in collecting ill -gotten money on behalf of Madhu Koda but also in making investment of the money so received for the purpose of money laundering.
(3.) FURTHER it has been alleged that number of companies/firms owned and controlled by the accused persons including the petitioner or their associate companies had entered into large number of financial transaction in projecting the ill -gotten money as genuine and this petitioner played a major role in investment of ill -gotten money to the extent of Rs. 58.69 crores, details of which have been given in the complaint. Thus, it has been alleged that the petitioner did commit offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the Act which is punishable under Section 4 of the Act.;