Ali Abbas Jafri Vs Ditectorate of Enforcement (Allahabad Sub Zonal Office) Allahabad

Heard Sri S.C Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Farukh Khan, Sri Mohd. Yasir Abbasi, Sri Manish Kumar Tripathi, Sri Prakash Priyadarshi and Sri Aditya Tyagai, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent- Directorate of Enforcement, (Allahabad Sub Zonal Office) Allahabad and perused the record.

¶10

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in ECIR/ALSZO/02/2023, under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, registered at Police Station Directorate Of Enforcement, Allahabad Sub Zonal Office.

¶11

The Director of Enforcement filed a complaint dated 23.06.2023 against three persons, including the applicant, stating that the officials of E.D had conducted search on 19 premises of various colleges, premises of trustees/ owner/managers of the colleges and Fino Bank agents under Section 17 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act on 16.02.2023 and 17.02.2023. The colleges including their Hygia Institute of Pharmacy/Central Institute of Pharmacy, managed by Oregon Educational Society, of which the applicant is one

¶12

of the members. It is alleged that various properties, incriminating documents and records related to money laundering were found during search, besides cash and foreign currency work Rs. 36.51 lacks.

¶13

The F.I.R no. 119 of 2023 was registered in P.S Hazratganj, District Lucknow, under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, 30.03.2023 against 18 named persons including the applicant and some other persons alleging that the accused persons have embezzled huge amount of Government money exceeding Rs.100 Crores, which meant to be distributed amongst students as scholarship.

¶14

Regarding the applicant, the complaint alleges that the applicant is a member of Oregon Educational Society. The conspiracy of commission of offence was hatched by the coaccused Izhar Hussain Jafri alongwith the applicant and Ravi Prakash Gupta.

¶15

The complaint states that three residential plots of the applicant have been attached by the respondent. One of the plots is stated to be worth Rs.60,50,000/- and attachment thereof has been made only to the tune of Rs.23,00,000/-. The second plot is worth Rs.5,80,000/- and the entire worth thereof has been attached. The third plot is worth Rs.10,50,000/- and attachment thereof has been made to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/only. Apparently, the respondent had to attach property worth Rs.38,86,000/- and the first of the properties attached by the Directorate of Enforcement itself is worth Rs.60,50,000/- which is far exceeding the proceeds of crime, regarding which the attachment has been made, yet the respondents have attached two more properties of the applicant. Rs.8,38,894/- deposited in the bank account of the applicant have also been attached by the respondent.

¶16

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Besides the schedule offence, the applicant has no criminal history.

¶17

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has already been granted bail Schedule offence by means of an order dated 05.03.2024 passed by of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15062 of 2023.

¶18

The learned counsel for the respondent has filed a counter affidavit opposing bail application and it has inter alia been stated in the counter affidavit that Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2807 of 2023 filed by accused person Praveen Singh Chauhan has been rejected by this Court by means of an order dated 13.12.2023.

¶19

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this statement made by the deponent of the counter affidavit, who is a Assistance Director of the Directorate of Enforcement, is misleading as in the counter affidavit verified on 30.01.2024, the aforesaid officer has concealed the fact that Praveen Singh Chauhan had challenged the order dated 13.12.2023 rejecting his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by filing S.L.P (Crl.) No. 325/2024 and on 10.01.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order staying the arrest of Praveen Singh Chauhan.

¶20

When any person files an affidavit before this court, he/she is accepted to come before the court with clean hands, by stating complete relevant facts. Non-disclosure of material and relevant facts amounts to concealment of fact, which may be treated as an attempt to mislead the court. When the affidavit is filed by a responsible officer of the government, the duty to disclose all the relevant facts completely becomes even more

¶21

serious. The statement made in the counter affidavit that anticipatory bail of Praveen Singh Chauhan has been rejected by this court by means of an order dated 13.12.2023 and not disclosing that the aforesaid co-accused persons has already been granted protection against his arrest by means of an order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be appreciated, to say the least.

¶22

While granting bail to the applicant in the Schedule offence, this court has recorded in the order dated 05.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14983 of 2023 that the Standard Operating Procedure fixed by the Social Welfare Department provides that the student has to fill up his particulars on N.S.C portal. Thereafter, the application I.D and password is sent through a SMS sent to a mobile phone of the student, after which the student submits an application for scholarship and uploads his documents. Thereafter, the student has to submit all his documents to the educational institute. In the second stage of the process, the Nodal Officer of the Educational Institute verifies the applications submitted online and the documents. In the third stage, the applications are received by the State Nodal Officer, who verifies the same and forward it through online method to the Government of India. In the fourth stage, the candidates are selected by the Government of India and thereafter the scholarship is transferred to the bank accounts of the student through DBT( Direct Benefit Transfer). From the aforesaid, it appears that numerous persons, officers, officials and authorities are involved in the process, besides the student in question. No student has been made an accused in the present case. There is no specific allegation of any act of commission by the applicant.

¶23

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact besides the Schedule offence the applicant has no criminal history and he has already been granted bail in the Scheduled offence, that as against the alleged proceeds of crime worth Rs.38,86,000/- the respondent has attached three immovable properties of the applicant worth

¶24

Rs. 60,50,000/- Rs.5,80,000/- and Rs 10,50,000/- besides Rs. 8,38,894/- deposited in his bank account, that co-accused Izhar Hussai Jafri, against whom the allegation of hatching the conspiracy has been levelled, has been granted bail and the allegation against the applicant is that he was also involved in the conspiracy and that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.04.2023 and even charges have not been framed till date, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶26

Let the applicant- Ali Abbas Jafri be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶27

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶28

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶29

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶30

Order Date :- 2.4.2024 Preeti.

¶31

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ali Abbas Jafri v. Ditectorate of Enforcement (Allahabad Sub Zonal Office) Allahabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Abbas Jafri v. Ditectorate of Enforcement (Allahabad Sub Zonal Office) Allahabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Accel Frontline Ltd. Thru Sanjeev Agrawal Manager Accnt. Vs the Prescribed Authority Minimum Wages Act 1948 and Others

Kailash and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Chandra Bhushan Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko.

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Hareram Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Chandan Rastogi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others