IN 

THE SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE P.M.L. ACT, GR. BOMBAY

ORDER BELOW EXH.8
IN
PMLA SPL. CASE NO.356 OF 2022

Pravin Madhukar Raut
Age – 61 year,
S/o Late Shri Madhukar Raut, 
R/o – 504, Dosti Orchid, Dosti Acres, 
Antop Hill, Wadala (East), Mumbai­37  … Applicant(A3)

                        Versus

Directorate of Enforcement
Government of India, through the 
Assistant Director, Mumbai Zonal Office­I, 
4th floor, Kaiser­I­Hind, Currimbhoy Road, 
Ballard Estate, Mumbai­01. … Complainant.

Appearance:
Mr.   Aabad   Ponda,   Ld.   Sr.   Counsel   @   Mr.   Nitesh   Jain,   Mr.   Hridhay
Khurana, Ld. Advs. i/b Trilegal for the applicant(A3).  
Mr. Hiten Venegavkar @ Mrs. Kavita Patil, Ld. Spl. P.Ps.

@
BAIL APPLICATION NO.582 OF 2022
IN
PMLA SPL. CASE NO.356 OF 2022

Sanjay Rajaram Raut
Age – 61 year,
S/o Late Shri Rajaram Ganpat Raut, 
R/o – Maitri Niwas, Friends Colony, Bhandup Village, 
Mumbai 400 042   … Applicant(A5)

                        Versus

Directorate of Enforcement
Government of India, through the 
Assistant Director, Mumbai Zonal Office­I, 
4th floor, Kaiser­I­Hind, Currimbhoy Road, 
Ballard Estate, Mumbai­01. … Complainant
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 2.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Appearance:
Mr. Ashok  Mundergi, Ld. Sr. Counsel @ Ld. Adv. Mr. Vikrant Sabne for 
the applicant (A5).
Ld. A.S.G. Mr. Anil Singh @ Mrs. Kavita Patil, Ld. Spl. P.P.

CORAM :  M. G. DESHPANDE, 
SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER THE PML ACT,
(C.R.No.16)
DATE   :    November 9, 2022.

COMMON ORDER
1. Initially   Pravin   Raut   (A3)   was   arrested   and   Main
Prosecution Complaint was filed against him.  His bail application was
being heard eversince.  In the meantime ED arrested Sanjay Raut (A5)
and subsequently filed Supplementary Complaint against him.  He had
also filed Bail Application No.582 of 2022 during the pendency of the
investigation. In this way when Supplementary Complaint against him
was   filed,   bail   applications   of   both   i.e.   Pravin   Raut(A3)   and   Sanjay
Raut(A5) were pending.   Basic case of the Directorate of Enforcement
(for short 'ED') in both i.e. Main and Supplementary Complaints is that,
Pravin Raut (A3) was the Director of GACPL, who was responsible for
selling   free   sale   component,   generated   Proceeds   of   Crime   (in   short
'POC') Rs.95 Cr./ Rs.100 Cr./ Rs.112 Cr. and subsequently laundered it.
The trail of the said money came to Sanjay Raut(A5) and his wife.  This
is the basic case pleaded in the Main and Supplementary Complaint.
Therefore facts, circumstances of transaction and reasons required for
discussion of bail application (Exh.8) of Pravin Raut(A5) are similar in
respect   of   bail   application   Sanjay   Raut(A5).     In   order   to   avoid
multiplicity and length of separate orders, this Court finds it necessary
to   decide   both   applications   by   way   of   this   common   order;   but   with
separate   discussions   wherein   Bail   Application   (Exh.8)   of   Pravin
Raut(A3) will be discussed first and thereafter, that of Sanjay Raut(A5).
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 3.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

2. Applicant Pravin Madhukar Raut in application (Exh.8) is
Accused   No.3   in   this   case,   prayed   for   grant   of   bail   contending   his
innocence   and   false   implication.     ED   vide   say   (Exh.8A)   strongly
opposed the application alleging his active involvement in generation,
placement,   layering   and   integration   of   Proceeds   Of   Crime   (POC),
amounting   a   serious   offence   of   money   laundering.     With   this   basic
contention,   ED   contended   to   reject   the   application   as   in   money
laundering offence, 'Jail is Rule and Bail is Exception'. 

3. Applicant   in   Bail   Application   No.582   of   2022   Sanjay

Rajaram   Raut   is   Accused   No.5   in   this   case,   prayed   for   grant   of   bail
contending   his   innocence   and   false   implication.   ED   vide   say   (Exh.2)
strongly   opposed   the   application   alleging   that   the   applicant(A5)   is
involved   in   the   crime   right   from   the   beginning   in   the   process   of
generation,   placement,   layering   and   integration   of   the   Proceeds   Of
Crime and thus committed serious offence of Money Laundering under
Sec.3 of the Prevention of Money­laundering Act (for short 'the PML
Act').   It   is   specifically   contended   that   for   laundering   money   and   the
proceeds thereof Pravin Madhukar Raut (A3) acted as proxy and front
man for Mr. Sanjay Raut(A5). It is also contended how the offence of
Money   Laundering   is   serious   wherein  'Bail   is   Exception   and   Jail   is
Rule'.  With this, it is contended to reject the application.

4. Heard   Ld.   Sr.   Counsel   Mr.   Aabad   Ponda   for   Pravin

Raut(A3) and Ld. SPP Mr. Hiten Venegaonkar @ Ld. SPP Mrs. Kavita
Patil   at   length   for   Bail   Application   Exh.8.     Apart   from   this,   Ld.   Sr.
Counsel   Mr.   Aabad   Ponda   filed   written   submissions   (Exh.8B   and
Exh.8C).     ED   also   filed   their   reply   (Rejoinders)   to   the   written
submissions of the Applicant (A3) vide Exh.8D and Exh.8E.  I carefully
read the same. 
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 4.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

5. Also heard Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Ashok Mundergi @ Ld. Adv.
Mr. Vikrant Sabne for Sanjay Raut(A5), the applicant in Bail Application
No.582 of 2022.  Heard Ld. Additional Solicitor General Mr. Anil Singh
@  Mr.  Ashish  Chavan  @  Mr. Aditya  Thakkar   @ Mrs.  Kavita  Patil  at
length.   Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Mundergi filed written notes, submissions
(Exh.19).     Even   Ld.   A.S.G.   filed   written   submissions   Exh.20   on
02.11.2022.  I carefully read the same.  

6. Language   of   Sec.45(1)(i)(ii)   prescribes   that,   the   Public

Prosecutor has to be given an opportunity to oppose the application,
which has been given abundantly in the instance case.  Secondly, where
the   Public   Prosecutor   opposes   the   application,   the  Court   has   to   be
satisfied   that   there   are   reasonable   grounds   for   believing   that
accused is/are not guilty of such offence and that he/they is/are
not likely to commit any offence while on bail.   Therefore, in the
background of arguments in both bail applications, it is inevitable to
frame following points as per language of Sec.45(1)(i)(ii) of the PML
Act for determination.   I am recording following findings thereon for
the reasons discussed below :­

POINTS FINDINGS
1. On   opposing   the   applications   by   the Yes.
Ld.   A.S.G   and   Ld.   S.P.P.,   whether   the
applicants (A3 and A5) have satisfied that,
there are reasonable grounds for believing
that they are not guilty of such offence and
that,   they   are   not   likely   to   commit   any
offence   while   on   bail,   as   per   Sec.45(1)(i)
(ii) of the PML Act?

2. What Order ? As per final order.
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 5.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

REASONS
ALL POINTS.
7. As   noted   above,   first   of   all   Bail   Application   (Exh.8)   of
Pravin Raut(A3) is being discussed and after conclusion thereof, Bail
Application No.582 of 2022 will be discussed.

I. BAIL APPLICATION (EXH.8) OF PRAVIN RAUT (A3).
CASE OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE.
8. EOW, Mumbai lodged FIR No.22/2018 dt. 13.03.2018 on
the   basis   of   the   complaint   filed   by   Mr.   Nitin   Gadkari,   Executive
Engineer, MHADA, Mumbai against M/s. Guru Ashish Construction Pvt.
Ltd.   (A4),   Rakesh   Kumar   Wadhawan   (A1),   Sarang   Wadhawan   (A2),
both   directors   of   M/s.   Guru   Ashish   Construction   Pvt.   Ltd.   (for   short
'GACPL') alleging wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.1034 Crore to MHADA
and corresponding gain to themselves and others.  Crime under Ss. 409,
420, 120B IPC was registered.   Offence under Ss. 420 and 120B IPC
being Scheduled Offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act,   2002   (   in   short   'PML   Act'),   Enforcement   Directorate   recorded
ECIR/MBZO­I/80/2021   on   08.09.2021  and   undertook   investigation
thereof.  

9. ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE FIR NO.22 OF 2018
a. MHADA is the owner of the land bearing CTS No.260, 260/1, 261 to
104, 264, 264/1 to 296, 265/1 to 40, 267, 267/17 to 24, 268(part),
268/45   to   86,   347,   347/1   to   16,   363,   36/1   to   56   and   bearing   CTS
No.18A/1, 18A/2, 22A to 22A/6, 22A/7A, 22A/7B, 22A/8A, 22A/8B,
22A/9, 22A/10, 22A/11A, 22A/11B, 22A/12, 22A/15, CTS No.22, 22/1
to 95, 23, 23/1 to 32, 24, 24/1 to 48 and 27(part) of village Pahadi,
Goregaon admeasuring 47 acres.   MHADA had provided tenements to
672   tenants   being   members   of   Goregaon   Siddharth   Nagar   Sahakari
Grihanirman Society Ltd.  
b. Authority  in  order  to  redevelop  the  said   672   tenements  entered   into
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 6.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Joint Development Agreement with M/s Guru Ashish Construction Pvt.
Ltd (A4).
c. On  10.04.2008  Joint   Development   Agreement   was   entered   into
between MHADA, Society (Goregaon Siddharth Sahakari Grihanirman
Sanstha Ltd.) and the developer GACPL for the purpose of redeveloping
the tenements occupied by the said 672 tenants on the land belonging
to MHADA.    
d. By virtue of the said agreement, it was agreed that each of 672 tenants,
built up area of 767 square feet would be provided. MHADA was to
provide with a constructed built up area of 1,11,476.82 sq.mt. on the
said property. In lieu thereof, the developer was entitled to develop the
free sale component in the land belonging to MHADA and to sell flats to
various third party flat purchasers.  
e. In the actual measurement the area of those tenements was found to be
1,93,599.20 sq.mt. as against the original area of 1,65,805.20 sq.mt. as
recorded in the Development Agreement dt.10.04.2008.
f. The FSI calculation towards the portion of developed area to be handed
over to MHADA by the developer was based on the area of 1,65,805.20
sq.mt.   Hence,   there   was   manipulation   of   FSI   which   had   resulted   in
undue  benefit to  the Developer.   It was also found  that by virtue of
three years delay between the signing of the agreement and completion
of   the   actual   measurement   resulted   in   escalation   of   property   prices
considerably which caused undue benefits to the Developer. 
g. Hence, on 15.06.2011 MHADA issued notice to the Developer seeking
revision   of   the   developed   area   to   be   handed   over   to   MHADA.     The
developer replied the said notice on  22.06.2011, accepted and agreed
that without the prior written consent of the other party (MHADA) the
developer had no right to assign the rights and obligations under the
said Tripartite Agreement to any third party and also confirmed that
they had not done so.   
h. Thereafter  Deed of Confirmation and Modification  was executed on
09.11.2011  between   the   parties.     On   the   basis   thereof   and   a   letter
dt.26.07.2011  issued by then VP and CEO of MHADA, the Developer
disposed off various parcels of MHADA land for construction of free sale
component to various third party developers without informing MHADA
or   obtaining   its   consent   and   thereby   received   substantial   amount   of
money for the sale. 

On the basis of these facts and allegations,  FIR No.22 of
2018 under Ss. 420, 409 and 120B of IPC was registered.  
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 7.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

10. ECIR AND FACTS ALLEGEDLY REVEALED IN THE PMLA 
INVESTIGATION.

a. In the investigation conducted by ED it was revealed that Pravin Raut
(A3) with Nippun Thakkar, Former Director of GACPL negotiated with
the erstwhile developer Lokhandwala Developers and assigned his rights
in favour of GACPL against monetary compensation for the 'Patra Chawl
Redevelopment   Project'   also   knowns   as   'Goregaon   Siddharth   Nagar
Sahakari   Grihanirman   Sanstha   Ltd.'     GACPL   was   acquired   by   Nipun
Thakkar in 2007 from the earlier stakeholders.  During year 2007 there
was   a   understanding   amongst   Pravin   Raut(A3),   Nipun   Thakkar   and
Rakesh Wadhawan.   Accordingly, on  20.02.2007  Nipun Thakkar gave
Pravin Raut 25% Sweat Equity (As claimed by Pravin Raut) and 50%
Equity was given to Rakesh Wadhawan (A1) who came as Investor and
Executor of the project and remaining 25% Equity was kept by Nipun
Thakkar within his family.  On 18.11.2013 Pravin Raut (A3) resigned
the Directorship of GACPL.
b. ED investigation allegedly revealed that Pravin Raut (A3) exercised
great   influence   from   conception   to   execution.     He   (A3)   was   well
aware of the fact that, there was no specific permission from MHADA to
sell flats and create third party rights. Yet, without any such permission
from   MHADA   they   launched   a   Housing   Project   in   the   name   of
'MEADOWS'  and  took bookings from 458  home  buyers and  collected
Rs.138 Crore.  For that Pravin Raut (A3) wrote a letter to MHADA being
director of GACPL, seeking permission to sell the sales portion without
specific permission of MHADA for each such sale.  It was revealed that
GACPL had sold the FSI to third party developer before receipt of any
communication   from   MHADA   and   before   signing   the   Deed   of
Confirmation   and   Modification.     In   this   way   all   arrangements   were
made in a preplanned way to siphon off money of needy home buyers,
third party developer and the tenants were left homeless.  
c. Tripartite   Agreement  dt.   10.04.2008,   Deed   of   Confirmation   and
Modification dt.03.11.2011 and various other documents indicate that
Pravin   Raut   (A3)   was   actively   involved   with   other   Directors   Rakesh
Kumar   Wadhawan   (A1)   and   Sarang   Wadhawan   (A2)   in   various
activities relating to the project.   He (A3) has received huge amount
around   Rs.95   Crore   from   HDIL   during   2008­2010   without   any   valid
reason.     According   to     him   (A3)   Rs.50   Crore   out   of   Rs.95   Crore   he
received  against the sale of  Sweat equity and remaining  Rs.45 Crore
from   land   deal   at   Palghar.     It   was   revealed   that,   25%   Sweat   Equity
(12500 equity shares) of M/s GACPL was not a Sweat Equity, but it was
an alibi created by Pravin Raut (A3) and Wadhawans (A1 and A2) to
create facade of legitimacy and this money meant for construction of
flats for displaced tenants and home buyers, were illegally transferred.
Such allotment of 25 % Sweat Equity (12500 equity) shares has not
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 8.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

been reflected in the books of account of the company.   In this way
Pravin Raut (A3) due to his involvement in obtaining the approval for
sale of FSI from MHADA laundered POC approximately Rs.1040 Crore
which he generated from the said activity.  
d. GACPL sold FSI to various third party developers for Rs.1034 Crore and
transferred the said amount to the parent company i.e. HDIL and also
sister   concern   for   their   business   purpose.     Money   trail   revealed   that
around Rs.100 Crore  Pravin Raut (A3)  received in his bank account
from   HDIL   and   further   transferred   the   same   in   acquiring   assets.
Hence,   he   is   knowingly   involved   in   the   process   of   generating   the
proceeds of crime and transferred of Rs.95 Crore for the acquisition of
assets.   Illegal sale of FSI during the said period was taken place and
siphoning off funds to his account has happened when he was serving as
Direction of GACPL.  For selling FSI with the active connivance of other
accused and knowingly indulging himself in laundering of POC, brings
him under Sec.3 with Sec.70(2) of the PML Act.  

PROCEEDS OF CRIME AS ALLEGED BY ED.
11. Gist of contention of ED is that GACPL illegally sold the FSI
to   third   party   Developers   and   raised   Rs1039.79   Crore/Rs.1048.96
Crore. Out of this amount Rs.147.17 Crore has been paid to Municipal
Corporation, Greater Mumbai. GACPL through HDIL launched a project
named   'MEADOWS'   in   2010   at   Patra   Chawl,   Goregaon   and   against
bookings   from   458   home   buyers,   an   amount   of   Rs.138   Crore   was
collected. For illegal sale of FSI, the accused generated total amount of
Rs.1039.79 Crore. Approximately Rs.1039.79 Crore were received in
the   bank   account   of   GACPL,   HDIL   and   its   group   Companies   during
2010­14. Some part of these amounts were utilized in developing the
project   which   remains   incomplete.   Whereas,   most   of   the   funds   were
siphoned off  to various accounts. The company had availed term loans
from   Union   Bank   of   India   around   Rs.100   Crore   by   way   of   Non­
Convertible debentures and around Rs.215 Crore from IL and FS Ltd.
Some part of these amounts were utilized in developing the projects
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 9.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

which remains incomplete. In this way the entire amount Rs.1039.79
Crore are illegally collected by unauthorized sale of FSI, is the Proceeds
Of Crime as per Sec.2(1) (u) of the PML Act. 

12. On the basis of these facts, various documents filed with
the complaint and statements recorded under Sec.50(2) and (3) of the
PML Act, ED resisted this application and contended to reject the same.

13.   FACTS AND GROUNDS FOR CLAIMING BAIL.
a. Alleged FSI Sale Proceeds are Rs.1039.79 Crore. However, actual
role   of   Pravin   Raut   (A3)   was   not   considered   by   the   ED   in
redevelopment of Siddharath Nagar project, when he was never
involved in any manner in alleged generation/ utilization of FSI
Sale Proceeds (POC).  
b. In various Survey Numbers owned by MHADA, referred in the
complaint   having   total   area   around   40   Acres,   MHADA   had
constructed   808   Ground   floor   structures   consisting   of   “Patra
Chawls”   having   each   tenements   ad­meausring   220   sq.   feet
(Siddharth   Nagar).     The   672   tenants   thereof   organized
themselves in a society known as 'Goregaon Siddharath Nagar
Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha Ltd.' (for short 'the society').  
c. The said society on 09.09.1986 entered into an agreement with
Lokhandwala Society and Development Company (Lokhandwala
Developers) to develop a gross land of 13.18 Acres of the said
land.  
d. In 1991–1992 Lokhandwala Developers constructed 3 buildings
comprising of Ground plus 4 floor upper storeys. On 23.11.1992
the society terminated agreement with  Lokhandwala Developers
as the said developers had offered accommodation ad­measuring
325 sq. feet of Carpet Area as opposed to 365 sq. feet for each
occupant.  
e. Lokhandwala Developers instituted  Suit No.4476/1985 before
the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 
f. The   Accused   No.3   with   his   old   acquaintance   Mr.     Nippun
Thakkar   had   executed   Projects   in   partnership   with   him   in
Nalasopara.   
g. Some   projects   of   Nippun   Thakkar   in   Mumbai   were   stuck   in
litigation and thereafter he suffered from health issues, hence he
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 10.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

asked help of Accused No.3 acknowledging his experience in the
field.  
h On 01.06.2000 GAPCL was incorporated with Nippun Thakkar
and others. In 2000 Mr. Mansukh Sureja, Mr. Chetan Kothari and
Mr.   Chetan   Patel   introduced   the   redevelopment   of   Siddharath
Nagar to GACPL. 
i. In 2004­2005 Mr. Nippun Thakkar approached accused No.3 for
his   assistance,   skills   and   experience   for   Siddharath   Nagar
Goregaon Project.
j. The   role   attributed   to   accused   No.3   was   that   he   (A3)   shall
introduce   Mr.   Thakkar   to   potential   investors   for   GACPL,   the
applicant   shall   settle   the   dispute   between   the     Lokhandwala
Developers and the society on behalf of Mr. Thakkar and shall
also handle litigation of the society on behalf of Mr. Thakkar.   
k. In   2006   Mr.   Thakkar   was   planning   to   exit,   hence   the
applicant(A3)   helped   with   a   proposal   of   bringing   Mr.   Rakesh
Wadhawan (A1) for taking over the Siddharath Nagar project.
l. On 18.06.2009 Development Agreement was entered between
GACPL   and   the   society   when   Mr.   Thakkar   healths   was
deteriorated   and   he  was  keen  to   sell  GACPL   and   negotiations
thereof were undergoing.   
m. On  17.12.2006  and   agreement   was   entered   between
Mr.   Nippun   Thakkar  and   Rakesh  Wadhawan   (A1)  to   facilitate
procurement of shares of other three shareholders of GACPL.
n. On  20.03.2007  accused   No.3   was   appointed   as  Director   of
GACPL  and   Mr.   Thakkar   for   the   efforts   of   accused   No.3
introduced   accused   No.1   as   an   Investor   in   GACPL   and
accordingly   Mr.   Thakkar   gave   25%   Sweat   Equity   shares   to
accused No.3 and this 25% Sweat Equity Shares were fully based
on the efforts of accused No.3 in the project and past successful
business relationship between him and Mr. Thakkar.   This fact
was   recorded   in   Registrar   of   Companies   (ROC).     Also   Board
Resolution   was   passed   by   GACPL   for   allotment   of   its   Equity
Shares.
o. In this way on  20.03.2007  the accused No.3 held 25% Swate
Equity   Shares   in   GACPL,   accused   No.1   held   50%   shares   and
Thakkar family of Mr. Nippun held 25% shareholding. 
 
p. Accused No.3 had limited role in GACPL with an understanding
between him and Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan (A1), wherein he
has   to   execute   and   register   shifting   agreements   with
tenants/occupants,   provide   assistance   in   legal   proceedings,
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 11.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

liasioning   with   MHADA   and   obtaining   approval   from   time   to

time.  
q. Accused No.3 was already granted bail by the Ld. Sessions Court
on 21.03.2020 in respect of EOW FIR which was filed in 2018,
wherein   the   Court   clearly   observed   that   (i)   from   the   amount
misappropriated   out   of   redevelopment   work,   no   amount   is
deposited   in   the   bank   account   of   the   accused   No.3,   (ii)   the
applicant has not signed any agreement with any developer, (iii)
since 2010 the applicant has not participated any transaction and
(iv) the applicant is not signatory of any bank transaction.   
r. There   are   no   grounds   for   believing   that,   the   accused   No.3   is
guilty   of   offence   of   money   laundering   as   there   is   no   material
evidence against him. 
s. The   prosecution   complaint   fails   to   disclose   the   commission   of
Predicate Offence.   Whatever alleged in the complaint discloses
the occurrence of civil dispute which is not a Predicate Offence. 
t. The accused No.3 had very limited period in GACPL.
u. At the relevant time his limited tenure in GACPL was related to
obtain   individual   letters   from   the   tenants   and   agreements
relating   to   permanent   alternate   accommodation,   eviction   of
tenants, field work and procedural correspondence with MHADA
and handling various litigations.  
v. Accused No.3 was never in­charge of sale of development rights
nor has any knowledge thereof, when accused No.1 and 2 were
directly connected for the same.   
w. Accused No.3 is not liable under Sec.70(2) of the PML Act. 
x. The   prosecution   complaint   incorrectly   mentions   that   the
Development   Agreement   with   third   party   developers   was
executed without obtaining consent from MHADA. 
y. Rs.99   Crore   is   not   a   part   of   POC,   but   constitutes   genuine
transaction,   subject   matter   is   completely   a   matter   of   separate
ECIR.
z. Accused No.3 passes the triple test.
    
14.   With above and various other facts and grounds Accused
No.3 referred various Court litigations which reached upto the Hon'ble
Supreme   Court   and   further   contended   that   he   has   a   limited   role   in
GACPL as director from 2010 to 2013.   Apart from this he contended
that allegations qua receipt of Rs.95 Crore by him being POC, is false.
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 12.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

As far as this prosecution complaint is concerned, Rs.90 Crore is not
alleged to be POC.  He received Rs.95 Crore from legitimate source of
funds and not at all connected to the FSI sale proceeds and there is
absolutely no document to show that Rs.95 Crore is related to the said
FSI sale proceeds.  These are basic contentions of Pravin Raut (A3)

15. Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Aabad Ponda placed his reliance on his
detailed   oral   argument   and   three   written   submissions   which   are
rejoined by the ED.  The points of his argument will be referred in the
discussion. 

ARGUMENT OF LD. SPP MR. HITEN VENEGAVKAR.
16. Ld. SPP Mr. Venegavkar argued that, FIR No.22 of 2018
relates to Ss.120B, 420 and 409 IPC, out of them offences under Ss.
120B   and   420   are   Predicate   Offences,   therefore,   ECIR   is   qualified.
Admittedly, the land in question belongs to MHADA, who inducted 672
occupants   and   redevelopment   thereof   was   decided   vide   Tripartite
Agreement.   According to him, as per the said agreement 767 Sq. feet
built up area flat was to be given individually to each of such occupants.
Benefit   to   sell   openly   the   remaining   portions   was   given   to   the
Developer.   He further referred clause (iv) page No.5 and contended
how 1,93,599.20 sq. mtrs. was actually found for the original area of
1,65,805.20 sq. mtrs. and developers misused the same.  This is the first
criminal activity.   Regarding the second criminal activity, Ld. SPP Mr.
Venegavkar referred clause (v) of page NO.6 of the complaint pointing
out the facts revealed in searches and surveys during investigation.  He
further submitted that the developer first of all collected bookings for
the project MEADOWS by selling the FSI to third party developers and
never constructed anything in the land proposed for MHADA occupants.
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 13.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

With thse and various other factors alleged in the complaint Ld. SPP Mr.
Venegavkar submitted that,   Rs.1039.79 Crore POC was raised.   The
Applicant(A3)   was   instrumental   and   played   an   important   role   in
generating and laundering POC and ultimately received Rs.112 Crore
from   the   POC,   transferred   some   part   thereof   in   the   account   of   Mrs.
Varsha   Raut   and   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   and   also   both   of   them   further
invested the same by purchasing plots/lands at Kihim, Alibaug. In this
way he committed offence of money laundering and hence, not entitled
to bail.  I carefully examined this argument.

17. Whole attack of ED and their arguments advanced by Ld.
ASG Mr. Anil Singh is that, there is money­laundering.  In an offence of
money laundering, due to seriousness thereof, “JAIL IS RULE AND BAIL
IS   AN   EXCEPTION”.     Hence,   thorough   examination   of   available
materials as required for ascertaining a prima­facie case, without any
mini­trial, is inevitable.   Guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the Hon'ble High Court in recent authorities reiterated that if allegations
and  consequences  thereof   are  serious,  'Beyond  reasonable  doubt  and
not   preponderance   of   probabilities'   is   the   test   even   for   deciding   bail
application.   So, in order to make such prima­facie assessment on the
basis of available materials, it is necessary to note some basic concepts
under the PML Act and thereafter factual and legal aspects can be seen.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME AND IMPORTANT STAGES IN MONEY­
LAUNDERING OFFENCE.

18. 'Proceeds of Crime' is defined under Sec.2(1)(u) of the PML
Act as follows,
“Proceeds   of   crime”   means   any   property   derived   or   obtained,
directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 14.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property
[or where such property is taken or held outside the country, the the
property equivalent n value held within the country] [or abroad]''
[Explanation – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that
“proceeds of crime” including property not only derived or obtained
from   the   scheduled   offence   but   also   any   property  which   may
directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any
criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence]

Recently   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in   the   landmark

authority   in  the  case   of  Vijay   Madanlal   Choudhary   and   others  Vs.
Union   of   India   and   others,   [Special   Leave   Petition   (Criminal)
No.4634   of   2014,   decided   on   27.07.2022]  laid   down   elaborate
guidelines   regarding   concept   of   “Proceeds   of   Crime”   which   are   as
follows, 
“31.  The  “proceeds   of   crime”   being   the   core   of   the
ingredients constituting the offence of money­laundering, that
expression needs to be construed strictly. In that, all properties
recovered   or   attached   by   the   investigating   agency   in   connection
with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence under the
general law cannot be regarded as proceeds of crime. There may be
cases where the property involved in the commission of scheduled
offence   attached   by   the   investigating   agency   dealing   with   that
offence, cannot be wholly or partly regarded as proceeds of crime
within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act — so long as
the whole or some portion of the property has been derived or
obtained by any person “as a result of” criminal activity relating
to   the   stated   scheduled   offence.   To   be   proceeds   of   crime,
therefore, the property must be derived or obtained, directly or
indirectly,   “as   a   result   of”   criminal   activity   relating   to   a
scheduled   offence.   To   put   it   differently,   the   vehicle   used   in
commission of scheduled offence may be attached as property
in the concerned case (crime), it may still not be proceeds of
crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act.
Similarly, possession of unaccounted property acquired by legal
means may be actionable for tax violation and yet, will not be
regarded   as   proceeds   of   crime   unless   the   concerned   tax
legislation   prescribes   such   violation   as   an   offence   and   such
offence is included in the Schedule of the 2002 Act. For being
regarded as proceeds of crime, the property associated with the
scheduled   offence   must   have   been   derived   or   obtained   by   a
person   “as   a   result   of”   criminal   activity   relating   to   the
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 15.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

concerned  scheduled  offence.  This distinction must  be borne   in

mind   while   reckoning   any   property   referred   to   in   the   scheduled
offence   as   proceeds   of   crime   for   the   purpose   of   the   2002   Act.
Dealing with proceeds of crime by way of any process or activity
constitutes offence of money­laundering under Section 3 of the Act.

32.  Be it noted that the definition clause includes any property
derived or obtained “indirectly” as well. This would include property
derived or obtained from the sale proceeds or in a given case in lieu
of or in exchange of the “property” which had been directly derived
or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled
offence.   In   the   context   of   Explanation   added   in   2019   to   the
definition   of   expression   “proceeds   of   crime”,   it   would   inevitably
include   other   property   which   may   not   have   been   derived   or
obtained   as   a   result   of   any   criminal   activity   relatable   to   the
scheduled   offence.   As   noticed   from   the   definition,   it   essentially
refers   to   “any   property”   including   abroad   derived   or   obtained
directly   or   indirectly.   The   Explanation   added   in   2019   in   no   way
travels   beyond   that   intent   of   tracking   and   reaching   upto   the
property   derived   or   obtained   directly   or   indirectly   as   a   result   of
criminal   activity   relating   to   a   scheduled   offence.   Therefore,   the
Explanation is in the nature of clarification and not to increase the
width of the main definition “proceeds of crime”. The definition of
“property”   also   contains   Explanation   which   is   for   the   removal   of
doubts and to clarify that the term property includes property of any
kind used in the commission of an offence under the 2002 Act or
any of the scheduled offences. In the earlier part of this judgment,
we   have   already   noted   that   every   crime   property   need   not   be
termed   as   proceeds   of   crime   but   the   converse   may   be   true.
Additionally, some other property is purchased or derived from the
proceeds of crime even such subsequently acquired property must
be regarded as tainted property and actionable under the Act. For, it
would become property for the purpose of taking action under the
2002   Act   which   is   being   used   in   the   commission   of   offence   of
money­laundering.   Such   purposive   interpretation   would   be
necessary to uphold the purposes and objects for enactment of 2002
Act.

“33.  Tersely   put,   it   is   only   such   property   which   is   derived   or

obtained,   directly   or   indirectly,   as   a   result   of   criminal   activity
relating   to   a   scheduled   offence   can   be   regarded   as   proceeds   of
crime. The authorities under the 2002 Act cannot resort to action
against any person for money­laundering on an assumption that the
property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that a
scheduled offence has been committed, unless the same is registered
with the jurisdictional police or pending inquiry by way of complaint
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 16.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

before   the   competent   forum.   For,   the   expression   “derived   or

obtained” is indicative of criminal activity relating to a scheduled
offence already accomplished. Similarly,  in the event the person
named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is
finally absolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction  owing to
an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the
criminal case (scheduled offence) against him/her, there can be
no action for money­laundering against such a person or person
claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the
stated   scheduled   offence.  This   interpretation   alone   can   be
countenanced   on   the   basis   of   the   provisions   of   the   2002   Act,  in
particular Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3. Taking any other
view would be rewriting of these provisions and disregarding
the express language of definition clause “proceeds of crime”,
as it obtains as of now.”

It is, therefore clear that, there should be a nexus between
property   derived   or   obtained,   directly   or   indirectly   “as   a   result   of”
criminal activity relating to “the stated scheduled offence”.  Even at the
stage of bail on the basis of available materials, examination to prima­
facie   find   out,   was   there   any   scheduled   offence,   at   the   relevant
(contemporary)   time?   Was   the   POC   derived   or   obtained,   directly   or
indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence?
Inquiry and examination of these two questions play very very vital role
in deciding the fate of this bail application.   When a criminal activity
relating to  POC  has to  be  examined prima­facie, certainly  Scheduled
Offence and its contemporary facts will have to be examined and there
is no option to overlook or ignore the same. 

19. It is a fact that, there was no FIR relating to any scheduled
offence at the relevant time during 2006­07 onwards till 2013 (when
A3   resigned   on  18.11.2013)   and   even   thereafter   till  13.03.2018
alleging   offences   of   Cheating   (Sec.420)   and   Criminal   Conspiracy
(Sec.120B), which are Predicate Offences.  On the contrary it is a fact
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 17.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

that FIR No.22/2018 was lodged on  13.03.2018  for alleged offences

under Ss. 406,420 and 120B IPC for the facts relating to it occurred in
2006­07 till 2013  (when A3 resigned GACPL on 18.11.2013.   Hence,
there   is   no   escape   for   ED   from   pointing   out   the  foundational   facts
happened during the said period amounting a criminal conspiracy and a
cheating, that too beyond reasonable doubt, in the context with Sec.24
of   the   PML   Act.     In  Ajay   Kumar   Chandraprakash   Baheti   Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement, (2022) SCC OnLine Bom. 1451 recently
the Hon'ble Bombay High Court clearly held as follows, 
“53. Having a sizable or any and every unaccounted money,
would not epso facto indicate the commission of an offence
under the PMLA 2002.  In other words in order to prove the
offence of money­laundering it has to be established that
the money involved are the proceeds of crime and having
full knowledge of the same, the person concerned projects
it as 'untainted property'.   The process undertaken in doing
so amounts to offence of money­laundering.”

So,   it   is   therefore   necessary   to   examine   whether   money

which Pravin Raut (A3) had dealt with, is basically a proceeds of crime
generated from the criminal activity relating to offence under Ss.420
and 120B IPC and he was dealing with the same having full knowledge
thereof   that   it   was   tainted     POC   and   further   projected   the   same   as
'untainted'.   In order to make prima­facie examination as to whether
there   was   any   criminal   activity   relating   to   offences   of   cheating   and
criminal conspiracy, the test therefore would be, whether the Applicant
(A3) had a dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time of entering into
the Tripartite Agreement  dt.10.04.2008  on behalf of GACPL or while
addressing the letter dt.09.06.2011 on behalf of GACPL.  
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 18.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

20. In other words it has to be examined prima­facie to find
out, (a) Whether the applicant(A3) with his wise brain took calculated
steps   right   from   the   beginning,   initially   hatched   criminal   conspiracy
with Mr. Nippun Thakkar and subsequently with co­accused persons,
and   then   entered   into   a   Tripartite   Agreement   on  10.04.2008  with
inducement and dishonest intention only and only to defraud and cheat
672 tenants as well as MHADA and induced them with such intention,
executed the agreement for cheating them forever.  Dishonest intention
right   from   the   inception   of   such   inducement   is   also   a   material
constituent aspect, which has to be satisfied.  

21. Apart from the above, other three basic ingredients of Sec.3
of PML Act are necessary to be seen, which are  Placement, Layering
and Integration.  
(a) 'Placement' refers to the physical disposal of bulk cash proceeds derived
from the illegal activity.  Moving the funds from direct association with the
crime.  The ultimate aim of this phase is to remove the cash (POC) from the
location   of   acquisition   so   as   to   avoid   detection   from   the   Authorities.
'Placement' represents the initial entry of funds into financial cycle.   It is a
physical   movement   of   cash   (POC)   away   from   the   location   where   it   was
obtained and its placement in the legitimate financial system. 
(b)  'Layering'  refers   to   separation   of   illicit   proceeds   from   the   source   by
creating complex layers of financial transactions.   In the course of layering,
there   is   the   first   attempt   at   concealment   or   disguise   of   the   source   of   the
ownership of  the  funds  by creating  complex  layer of  financial transactions
designed to disguise the audit trail and provides secrecy.   Its purpose is to
dissociate the illegal monies from the source of crime by purposely creating a
complex web of financial transactions aimed at concealing any audit trail as
well as the source and ownership of funds.  
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 19.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

(c)  'Integration' is the final stage at which 'laundered' property/ money is
reintroduced into the legitimate economy.   This stage of money­laundering
process entails that the money infused into the normal commercial sphere is
collected and made available to criminals to be enjoyed or re­invested into
their criminal activities.   The funds that were processed during the layering
stage are placed in apparently legal business.  

22. It is therefore clear that, the process of generation of POC,
its placement, layering and integration is an outcome of wise brains,
with calculated steps with dishonest mala­fide intention  a Mens­Rea in
respect of criminal activity relating to the Scheduled Offence.  In the
instant case whether the material on record depicts all such steps and
stages including criminal activity relating to the Predicate Offence, is
the real test which will decide the fate of this application. It is therefore
necessary to examine all available material thoroughly in the context
with the basic requirements to apply stringent twin conditions under
Sec.45, the PML Act.   Hence, thorough examination is necessary that
too   without   any   mini­trial   to   find   out   whether   the   complaint   and
materials on record are qualified.  

23. Admittedly,   there   was   no   FIR   for   the   allegations   and

circumstances   of   transactions   happened   in  2006­07  till   the   date   of
resignation of Pravin Raut (A3).   FIR No.22/2018  was lodged much
subsequently on  13.03.2018.   Definition under Sec.3 of the PML Act
clearly   states   that   money­laundering   is   inextricably   linked   to   the
Predicate   Offence.    So,   it   is   bounden   duty   and   obligatory   on   the
Court   to   sit   in   the   arm­chair   of   the   contemporary   period   and
examine those facts associated to it.  This exercise is unavoidable and
inevitable, but necessary to find out whether there was any criminal
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 20.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

activity   relating   to   the   Predicate   Offence   for   which   no   FIR   was

registered at that time.  At the cost of repetition it has to be noted that,
this exercise is necessary and inevitable to find out whether there was
any inducement and cheating at the inception when there was no such
FIR till 2013 and even thereafter till 13.03.2018.

MATERIALS WHETHER INDICATE EXISTENCE OF THE SCHEDULED
OFFENCE? GENERATION OF POC AND MONEY­LAUNDERING?

Facts and Material relating of Contemporary Period.

24. Execution   of   Tripartite   Agreement  dt.10.04.2008  by   the

Society, GACPL and MHADA is an admitted fact.   On  20.03.2007  the
applicant(A3)   became   Director   of   GACPL,   specifically   for   handling
various litigations concerning Siddharth Nagar Project.  Prior to it there
was similar project initiated by Lokhandwala Builders and the same was
trapped in battle of litigation for a very long period, hence could not
attain finality. Mr. Nippun Thakkar gave 25% Sweat Equity shares to
the applicant(A3). The copy of  Resolution dt.31.03.2007  filed by the
applicant (A3) clearly shows the inter­se arrangement of the shares with
clear   specification   thereof.     Volume   VI,   page   166   filed   by   ED   with
prosecution complaint (PC) clearly shows that the Society and GACPL
submitted   a   joint   proposal   for   development.    MHADA   Resolution
No.6280   dt.01.11.2007  indicates   that   it   has   sanctioned   the
Redevelopment Scheme.  On 03.03.2008 the State Government granted
its approval for Redevelopment.  

25. The Tripartite Agreement dt.10.04.2008 indicates mutual
rights, liabilities and obligations of  the  parties  to it having following
main features.
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 21.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

a. Area of 26.82 Acres was included in a proposal which was to
be implemented by the Society, GACPL and MHADA.
b. The   tenants   were   to   be   allotted   tenements   having   Carpet
area of 555 square feet, free of cost
c. GACPL was permitted to sell balance built up area in order to
recover the project cost.

Much capital is made in the PC that FSI was sold without
permission and consent of MHADA, but the basic Tripartite Agreement
dt.10.04.2008 to which MHADA was also a party, clearly indicates that
it has given liberty to GACPL to sell balance built up area, for raising
money.  

26. The   applicant(A3)   placed   reliance   on  'Annual   Return'

under the Companies Act (Schedule V – Part I) and Form 20B, which
clearly   indicates   that   HDIL   and   Rakesh   Kumar   Wadhawan   (A1)
purchased applicant's stake for a total consideration of Rs.50 Crore.  In
this way the applicant(A3) received Rs.50 Crore for selling   his 25%
share   and   received   the   same   from   GACPL.     The   copies   filed   by   the
applicant(A3) show that, thereafter Civil litigation cropped up before
the   Hon'ble   Bombay   High   Court   vide  (i)   Writ   Petition   No.2690   of
2010   dt.02.12.2010,   (ii)   Writ   Petition   No.851   of   2010
dt.08.04.2010, (iii)Notice of Motion No.523 of 2010 dt.01.10.2010
and (iv) Notice of Motion No.547 and 548 of 2010 in Writ Petition
No.1478 of 2009 dt.11.10.2010.  The Hon'ble High Court dismissed all
these proceedings specifically noting as follows :­
a. the work of development has already progressed.
b. out  of   the  672   occupants,   the   present   developer   claims   to
have consents of 571 occupants.
c. documents have been registered with 472 of the occupants.
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 22.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

The   structure   of   412   occupants   have   already   been

demolished   and   they   have   either   shifted   to   transit
accommodation or are in receipt of payment in lieu thereof. 

  The Hon'ble High Court further held that it would be
manifestly against the interest of the occupants whose structures
have been demolished and who are now awaiting the completion of
the schemes.   Judicial note  requires to be taken that the process of
obtaining consent from the occupants is a tedious and time consuming
task for any Developer including the instant.   In this way after noting
the remarkable progress of development and justifying the said process,
the Hon'ble High Court refused to exercise of the jurisdiction and also
considering the merits dismissed all those proceedings on 10.02.2011.  

27. It   is   therefore   apparent   to   prima­facie   hold   that   until

10.02.2011, there was absolutely no element of cheating, intention to
cheat   and   induce   672   occupants   and   MHADA   nor   any   criminal
conspiracy   or   breach   of   trust   on   the   part   of   the   applicant(A3)   and
GACPL.   On the contrary the Hon'ble High Court had appreciated
the development work and progress thereof.   This fact is evident
from   the   order   of   the   Hon'ble   High   Court.     All   this   prima­facie
indicates   ab­initio   absence   of   element   of   cheating   and   criminal
conspiracy.   Even drawing any inference about the same after a long
time of 8 years in 2018 till date is not permissible.  All this prima­facie
further   goes   to   show   that,   the   said   development   activity   vide
Tripartite Agreement dt.10.04.2008, was not intended dishonestly
to induce and cheat 672 tenants as well as MHADA for prima­facie
holding it as a 'criminal activity of inducement and cheating at the
inception relating to the Scheduled Offence'.   In my opinion this is
one of the important aspects.  
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 23.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

28. Various   documents   filed   with   the   PC   prima­facie

demonstrate   how   there   was   substantial   progress   after  Tripartite
Agreement dt.10.04.2008. Volume VI Page 217 indicates a submission
dt.12.05.2009  regarding consent obtained from the tenants.   Copy of
order  dt.07.10.2011  in  Writ   Petition   No.272/2011  clearly indicates
that, proceedings before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court arising out of
the Siddharth Nagar Project were decided/withdrawn on 01.02.2010,
02.02.2011 and 07.10.2011.  In the order dt.07.10.2011 the Hon'ble
High Court in paragraph 2 clearly noted as follows, 
“2. The order passed by this Court was impugned in Special Leave
Petitions before the Supreme Court which were dismissed on  15
April 2011 and 25 April 2011 respectively.  Since  the dismissal of
the earlier petition by this Court about eight months ago, the work
under the projects has substantially advanced.  Counsel appearing
on behalf of the   society and for the developer has placed on the
record a compilation which shows that :

(i)   out   of   total   number   of  672  occupants,  637  or  95%  have

executed   letters   of   consent   and  607  or  90%  have   entered   into
registered agreements;

(ii) 644 structures equivalent to 96% have been demolished.

(iii) An amount approximately of Rs.113.23 Crores has been
     expended towards the project; and

(iv) The work of construction has substantially progressed.”

Even   the   order   of   the   Hon'ble   Bombay   High   Court   was

challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and same was pending
before   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   till  06.07.2012.    However,   on
06.07.2012 the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the same and this fact
is evident from the copy of order  dt.06.07.2012  in  Special Leave to
Appeal (Civil)CC 10282/2012.  
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 24.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

29. Volume VI page 218 with PC shows that MHADA approved
layout on  19.05.2009.   Eviction orders by MHADA were served upon
the   occupants   on  18.12.2010.     In   the   meantime   the   said   land   was
surveyed and Modification Deed was executed.  Prima­facie it is crystal
clear that, till  06.07.2012  (the Hon'ble Supreme Court order) though
the  development  project   was dragged  in  the  battle  of   litigations,  yet
simultaneously it was progressing and the same was acknowledged by
the   Hon'ble   Bombay   High   Court.     Can   all   these   activities   and   the
litigations cropped up as such, be termed as criminal activities relating
to a Scheduled Offence, as contemplated in Sec.2(1)(u) r.w. Sec.3 of
the PML Act? Prima­facie there is absolutely nothing to show that there
was dishonest intention of Pravin Raut(A3) from the inception and at
the very beginning of the transaction, to hold him guilty for an offence
under   Sec.420   IPC   or   even   Sec.120B   IPC.     On   the   contrary   all   such
activities indicate genuineness thereof.

30. Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Aabad Ponda placed reliance on  Pran

Jyoti   Bhuyan     V.     State   of   Assam,   (2014   SCC   OnLine   Gau   18),
wherein it was held that it is inbuilt in Section 415 of the IPC that there
must   be   a   dishonest   intention   from   the   very   beginning   of   the
transaction,   which   is   a   sine   qua   non   to   hold   an   accused   guilty   for
commission of the said offence.  When allegations are made regarding
failure on the part of an accused to keep his promise in the absence of a
culpable intention at the time of making the initial promise, no offence
under   Sec.420   of   the   IPC   can   be   said   to   be   made   out.     Therefore,
intention   and   inducement   at   the   inception   of   circumstances   of
transaction play very important role, because in this case at the relevant
time no FIR relating to any Scheduled Offence was lodged and the same
was lodged recently on  13.03.2018  for the said facts which allegedly
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 25.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

took place in 2008­11.  Therefore careful examination of this aspect is
necessary   to   find   out   whether   there   was   any   scheduled   offence   and
criminal activity relating to it at the relevant time.

31. The record is self demonstrative that, all the civil litigations
and various activities like obtaining consent of occupants, sanction of
layout by MHADA, land survey etc. were in fact bonafide and genuine
activities, prima­facie indicating the intention of developer to complete
the project within the stipulated time for which the Society, GACPL and
MHADA   executing  Tripartite   Agreement   dt.10.04.2008.     Therefore,
all these facts, circumstances of transaction and the activities nowhere
even remotely suggest that those were the criminal activities relating to
the Scheduled Offence. Nor the same depicts any deception, malafide
intention to cheat when GACPL entered into the Tripartite Agreement
dt.10.04.2008 in order to commit any Scheduled Offence under Ss.420,
120B IPC.   

32. Volume VI page 181 is a letter  dt.09.06.2011  written by

the   applicant   (A3)   to   the   Vice   President,   MHADA.     Careful   perusal
thereof indicates that the applicant(A3) pointed out to the MHADA how
substantial time was consumed in various litigations before the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in respect of Resolution and Tripartite Agreement.
MHADA   was   further   pointed   out   the   time   consumed   and   expenses
incurred for vacating the land.  It was also requested for appointing an
Officer from MHADA for signing Agreements on its behalf.  Responding
the said request as such made vide the letter  dt.09.06.2011, MHADA
vide their letter dt.26.07.2011, clearly conveyed as follows, 
“3. To   appoint   an   Officer   who   can   sign   Sale   Agreement   on
behalf of MHADA for the Free Sale Component in the share of the
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 26.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Developer.     However,   it   is   suggested   that   by   signing   of   every

Agreement,   MHADA   may   create   a   huge   liability   of   free   sale
component of the developer upon MHADA.   For this reason, free
sale area should be allowed to be sold by the developer on his
own responsibility with the condition that saleable area should
not exceed the approved share of the Developer in terms of FSI
or constructed flats and construction should be carried out in
proportion for MHADA, Society and the Developer as approved
by MHADA.
During   the   discussion   you   have   agreed   that   instead   of
signing the Sale Deed at this juncture, you will only take booking
for free sale flats and enter into Agreement for Sale.   It is further
clarified that you will be permitted to sell free sale component
where signature of the MHADA officers will not be required,
however   NOC   to   the   Occupation   Certificate   for   free   sale
component   shall   not   be   issued   by   MHADA   unless   and   until
proportionate share of built up area is handed over to MHADA.

33. This MHADA letter  dt.26.07.2011  is prima­facie the best

evidence to show that, GACPL was permitted to enter into agreements
for sale and also to take bookings for free sale flat in respect of free sale
component   with   certain   conditions.     Stepping   ahead     the
correspondence   between   MHADA  dt.15.06.2011  and   GACPL
dt.20.06.2011 clearly indicates that MHADA and GACPL unequivocally
agreed to Review the conditions of Tripartite Agreement,   suggesting
consequential amendments to the Tripartite Agreement.  In this way it
was agreed to execute a Modification Deed and the draft thereof was
circulated amongst the MHADA Officers.  

34. Volume VI Page 189 is an  Office Note dt.25.08.2011  in

respect of the proposed Modification Deed, for the circulation thereof
internally for discussion and finalization.  Office Note dt.02.09.2011 in
respect   of   proposed   Modification   Deed   proposing   change   to  Clause
2.1.2(xviii) of the Tripartite Agreement as follows, 
“On 2 September 2011 [Page 194, Vol VI, RUD], MHADA prepared
an   office   note   setting   out   their   remarks   on   the   proposed
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 27.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Modification Deed.  By the said office note, it is evident that GACPL
proposed   the   following   change   to   Clause   2.1.2(xviii)   of   the
Tripartite Agreement:
“Prior   to   executing   of   Sale   Deed   or   Conveyance   Deed   or   Lease
Deed as the case may be of the said land or any portion thereof to
the   organization   of   various   unit   holders,  the   Developer   shall
obtain   a   No   Objection   Certificate   from   the   Chief   Officer   of
MHADA.”

  Responding   the   aforesaid   proposed   change,   MHADA

prepared   internal   Note   stating   as  “This   Clause   should   not   be
modified. Although there is no need to sign each and every Sale
Deed.  However, it would be appropriate to obtain to MHADA's NOC
before conveyance”.

35. Documents in Volume VI Page 203 and 204 dt.03.09.2011
indicate that MHADA resolved in respect of  Clause 2.1.2(xviii)  of the
Tripartite   Agreement,   that   the   Clause   may   be   included   as   per
permission granted vide letter  dt.27.07.2011.   MHADA's internal note
dt.23.09.2011 states as follows,
“...   Considering   all   other   clauses   as   per   the   observations   of   the
Hon. VP & CEO/A, draft Deed of Confirmation and Modification
has been prepared and kept forthwith. 

      CO/MB is requested to kindly get the same verified as per
the approval granted by the Hon. VP&CEO/A and thereafter steps
to finalise/execute the same may be taken.   After execution, the
deed   will   have   to   be   submitted   to   the   Authority   for   ex   facto
approval.”

MHADA's   internal   note  dt.01.11.2011  while   approving

Modification Deed states as under, 
“After discussion the Hon. VP&CEO/A has accorded its approval for
the   clauses   to   be   included   and   accordingly   the   draft   has   been
finalized.  Along with the draft Modification, certain annexures are
required to be annexed which have been prepared considering the
subsequent   changes   in   the   area   of   the   plot   etc.   This   draft   is   in
order....”
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 28.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

36. On  09.11.2011  the   Modification   Deed   was   executed

between MHADA, the Society and GACPL.   The applicant(A3) signed
the same in the capacity of Director of GACPL. By virtue of Clause 11 of
the Modification Deed,  Clause (xviii)  of the Tripartite Agreement was
replaced as follows,
“... It is further expressly agreed and understood between the parties
hereto   that   in   case   the   Developer   desires   to   sell   the   free   sale
component on its own terms and responsibility either in its entirely or
in part including sale of flats/units that would be construed in the
free sale building component then the Developer may do so provided
however, MHADA shall not be responsible for any liability that may
arise from the same and the Developer shall not exceed the FSI that is
allotted   to   it   under   the   Joint   Development   Agreement,   and   shall
further   ensure   that   the   share   of   MHADA   and   rehabilitation
component   for   the   Tenant   is   not   adversely   affected   and   for   that
purpose   the   Developer   may   enter   into   arrangements/agreements/
deeds or any such kind of writing as it may deem fit where there will
be no requirement of signatory either from MHADA or Society on the
documents/writings that would be executed and registered in regard
to free sale component of the Developer.  However, it is agreed that
the NOC to the Occupation Certificate for Free Sale Component shall
not be issued by MHADA unless and until proportionate share of built
up area is handed over to MHADA.

  Clause 19 of the Modification Deed is nothing but a lawful
acknowledgment   given   by   all   the   parties   to   the   said   Deed   regarding
validity,   binding   force   of   amendment,   rectification   and   clarification
thereof.   It was further recited that, the Tripartite Agreement and
the   Modification   Deed   were   to   be   read   as   one   Agreement   and
construed together.   All this prima­facie indicates that, it is MHADA
who had given permission to sell free component by putting rider of
their   NOC.     On  06.06.2012  the   applicant(A3)   in   the   capacity   as   a
Director in GACPL wrote a letter about detailed queries regarding the
project.   It is an admitted fact that the order  dt.07.10.2011  passed in
W.P.   No.272   of   2011  was   challenged   before   the   Hon'ble   Supreme
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 29.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Court in  Special Leave Petition No.10282 of 2012  and the Hon'ble

Supreme   Court   dismissed   the   same   vide   order  dt.06.06.2012.     On
18.11.2013 the applicant (A3) gave his resignation as a Director from
GACPL.  His resignation was reflected in the records of the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs.  FORM­12 is a prima­facie best evidence of this facts.

37. Careful perusal of complaint and all voluminous documents
prima­facie   reflects  that the  applicant(A3) had never  entered  into  or
participated   directly   or   indirectly   any   discussions   relating   to   Sale   of
Development Rights on the said land to third party developers.  On the
contrary the record clearly shows that and even it is the case of ED
that,   the   third   party   developers   entered   into   Development
Agreement for Siddharth Nagar Project at the instance of Rakesh
Kumar Wadhawan (A1) and Sarang Wadhawan(A2).  Statements of
various   witnesses   recorded   under   Sec.50(2)   and   (3)   of   the   PML   Act
prima­facie corroborate that the applicant(A3) was never privy to the
discussions that transpired between the third party developers, Rakesh
Kumar   Wadhawan(A1)   and   Sarang   Wadhawan   (A2).     All   such
discussions were fronted entirely by Accused No.1 and 2.  

38. It   is   also   clear   that   after   applicant's   resignation   as   a

Director   from   GACPL  (dt.18.11.2013),   the   applicant(A3)   was   not
involved in the management or affairs of GACPL.  Even the case of ED
speaks the same that, whatever POC generated, it was during 2008 to
2011.  Admittedly, the first part of battle of litigations continued till the
Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   dismissed  SLP   II   No.10282   of   2012   on
06.07.2012.     Hardly  one   year   and   five   months  thereafter   the
applicant(A3) resigned GACPL.  Till then and even in the second round
of every litigation, MHADA was party.   Yet, never contended that the
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 30.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

applicant(A3)   was   the   main   person   who   induced   MHADA   and   672
occupants and further cheated them, laundered money from the activity
relating to the Scheduled Offence (Ss.420,120B IPC), which is the basic
requirement for offence of cheating.  Even otherwise it is on record that
right from  the  beginning a battle of  civil  litigations was going on  in
respect of the said project and the Hon'ble Supreme Court shut down
this first round of litigation on 06.07.2012.  Record indicates that even
prior   to   it   since   1994­95   the   Society   and   erstwhile   developer
Lokhandwala were litigating.  Therefore, it is clear that from 2007 till
2012 there was a Court litigation and also simultaneously there was a
remarkable progress in the project.   Therefore, question of generating
proceeds of crime during the said period till 06.07.2012 does not arise
nor it can be said that the applicant had entered GACPL and the project
in   question,   with   a   calculated   intention   to   cheat   as   required   under
Sec.420 IPC.   Even after 06.07.2012 till the date of his resignation
i.e.   18.11.2013   question   of   generation   of   POC   does   not   arise,
because ED itself  contended  that alleged  period of  generation  of
POC is 2007­2011.  It is material to note that even in 2018 MHADA
continued litigation with Rakesh (A1), Sarang (A2), their HDIL and
also accepted/consented that they are the persons, who allegedly
sold FSI and also  acknowledged  Affidavit  of Sarang(A2)  with  his
sworn   statement   that   he   entered   into   12   Agreements   with   third
party   developers   for   selling   FSI.     Therefore,   the   question   of
generating POC by the Applicant(A3) after 18.11.2013 till date does
not arise.  
 
39. Admittedly there was no FIR for the alleged contemporary
acts happened during 2007 to 2011, at the relevant time.   Therefore,
conduct of MHADA while lodging FIR in respect of Predicate Offences in
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 31.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

2018 for the transactions which had taken place prior to 2013, speaks
volumes.     Basically   MHADA   is   estopped   from   doing   so.   MHADA   is
debarred to say anything which it had alleged in the FIR No.22 of 2018.
I strongly feel that this aspect cannot be overlooked and ignored while
deciding merits of this application. 

40. It   is   also   necessary   to   take   judicial   note   of   the   stand

previously   taken   by   MHADA.     All   documents   with   the   Prosecution
Complaint indicate that previously MHADA had taken stand that the
purported   wrong   doings   have   been   committed   by  Rakesh   Kumar
Wadhawan (A1), Sarang Wadhawan (A2) and their HDIL.   Ld. Sr.
Counsel   Mr.   Aabad   Pond   submitted   an   order   passed   by   the   Hon'ble
Bombay   High   Court   restraining   HDIL   from   disposing   of   any   of   its
immovable   properties/assets,   except   in   ordinary   course   of   business.
The said order states as follows,
“HDIL   shall   file   an   Affidavit   setting   out   its   immovable   properties/
assets (encumbered and unencumbered) and a copy of the same shall
be  handed   over   to   the  Advocates  for  the  parties  on  or  before   26 th
April, 2018.  The said assets shall not be disposed of by HDIL except
in usual course of business.”

   Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Aabad Ponda further pointed out that
HDIL preferred Notice of Motion (LODG) No.1279 of 2018 and sought
clarification of the above referred order.   The Hon'ble High Court by
order dt.06.08.2018 disposed off the same noting  HDIL's role in the
execution of Development Agreements with third party developers
as follows,

“8.   The   plaintiff's   filed   the   above   Suits   before   this   Court
impugning the termination notice dated 12th January, 2018.  At
the   ad­interim   stage,   the   Senior   Advocates   appearing   for   the
Plaintiffs   in   the   above   Suits   submitted   that   MHADA   cannot
terminate the Agreement with GACPL since the same will cause
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 32.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

grave harm, loss and damage to the Plaintiffs and MHADA.   It
was   submitted   on   behalf   of   MHADA,   that   GACPL   was   not
entitled   in   law   to   enter   into   any   such   Agreements   with   the
Plaintiffs and the termination notice was valid.   However, the
Plaintiffs in the above Suits as well as MHADA agreed, that
in view of the undertakings given by Shri Wadhawan in the
Meadows Suit, HDIL, which is a holding Company of GACPL,
is responsible for the misdeeds of GACPL.”

41. In this way not only the Hon'ble High Court confirmed that,
HDIL (A1 and A2) is responsible for the misdeeds of GACPL, but also it
is MHADA who had agreed this clear situation before the Hon'ble High
Court and made representation as such.   Where the question arises
about   alleged   role   of   the   Applicant(A3)   and   alleged   inducing,
cheating and criminal conspiracy by him?   Can we go behind the
clear observations made by the Hon'ble High Court simply because
one   fine   morning   forgetting   and   keeping   aside   all   this,   MHADA
filed FIR No.22/2018?  Are we permitted to do so?  And after such a
long   spell   of   time,   can   it   be   permitted   to   contend   that   it   was   only
money­laundering   and   various   civil   litigations,   survey   proceedings,
Modification   Deed   amending   Tripartite   Agreement,   executing
Agreements with occupants had absolutely no influence on the delay in
progress of the project?  That too when MHADA itself had allowed the
Developers   to   Sale   Free   Sale   Component   noting   the   background   of
expenses made by the Developer and the time consumed in litigation.  

42. Ld.   Sr.   Counsel   Mr.   Aabad   Ponda   further   placed   his
reliance on an Affidavit dt.08.02.2017 filed by Sarang Wadhawan (A2)
before   the   Hon'ble   High   Court   stating   that,   GACPL   has   entered   into
agreement with third party developers.  The same is as follows,
“23.   Defendant   No.1   has   entered   12   Agreements   with   various
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 33.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

third   parties   for   sale   of   its   development   right   in   the   free   sale
portion of the said layout in Sectors R­6, 6­7, R­8, R­12 (Part) and
R­12 (Part).”

  What   more   is   required   to   prima­facie   hold   that   accused

No.1 and 2 were basically involved in the process of making agreements
with third party developers and selling the free sale component?  At the
same time no prima­facie evidence is required to hold that the applicant
had absolutely no role in all such transactions and earnings therefrom.
Apart from this, judicial note has to be taken that in the said proceeding
before the Hon'ble High Court, MHADA was the party and accepted this
situation.  Nowhere at that time MHADA had contended a word that the
Applicant(A3) had cheated them   and  672  occupants  of  Patra  Chawl.
Sarang   Wadhawan   (A2)   had   filed   affidavit   in   the   said   matter   on
08.02.2017 and made a sworn statement as referred above.  Thereafter,
vide order dt.24.04.2018 MHADA's contention was recorded wherein it
has   stated  “HDIL,   which   is   holding   company   of   GACPL,   is
responsible   for   misdeeds”.     Sworn   statements   made   by   Sarang
Wadhawan (A2), findings given by the Hon'ble High Court on the basis
thereof and conduct of MHADA make it abundantly clear as follows,
a. Even   MHADA   believed   that   after   execution   of   Tripartite
Agreement,   substantial   progress   took   place   in   Siddharth
Nagar Project.
b. Conduct of MHADA prima­facie indicates that it intentionally
permitted and affirmed the transactions between GACPL and
third party developers for the free sale component.
c. In the suit before the Hon'ble High Court, it is MHADA who
affirmed   that   purported   wrong   doings   alleged   in   the
complaint were done by HDIL, Rakesh (A1) and Sarang (A2).

So, MHADA is prima­facie estopped and cannot be allowed
to   deny   the   same   and   fasten   criminal   liability   on   the   Applicant(A3).
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 34.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

When the serious question of Right to Liberty of the applicant (A3) is
there, the Court cannot accept and put premium on such approbate and
reprobate   attitude   of   the   MHADA.     All   this   what   MHADA   has   been
doing   is   by   its   declaration,   act   or   omission,   intentionally   caused   or
permitted another person including the Hon'ble High Court to believe a
thing to be true and to act upon such belief, hence MHADA cannot be
allowed to deny the truth of that thing.  So, MHADA cannot approbate
and   reprobate.     It   cannot   both   affirm   and   dis­affirm   the   same
transaction.   Discussion of all this is necessary and inevitable as it is
MHADA   who   has   lodged  FIR   No.22/2018  on   one   fine   morning
dt.13.03.2018 for the alleged facts which had taken place during 2007­
2013.    All   such   conduct   of   MHADA   is   not   only   suspicious   but   also
indicates an abuse of process of law. 

43. Ld.   Sr.   Counsel   Mr.   Aabad   Ponda   placed   reliance   on  J.
Sekar   @   Sekar   Reddy     Vs.   Directorate   of   Enforcement   (Criminal
Appeal No.738 of 2022)  wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows, 
“18.   …   In   our   opinion,   even   in   cases   of   PMLA,   the  Court   cannot
proceed   on   the   basis   of   preponderance   of   probabilities.     On
perusal of the statement of Objects and Reasons specified in PMLA, it
is   the   stringent   law   brought   by   Parliament   to   check   money
laundering.    Thus,   the   allegation   must   be   proved   beyond
reasonable   doubt   in   the   Court.     Even   otherwise,   it   is   incumbent
upon the Court to look into the allegation and the material collected
in support thereto and to find out whether the prima facie offence is
made out.  Unless the allegations are substantiated by the authorities
and   proved   against   a   person   in   the   court   of   law,   the   person   is
innocent.”

  Most   important   thing   is   that   Rakesh   Kumar   Wadhawan

(A1) and Sarang Wadhawan (A2) whom MHADA has blamed the most,
were not even arrested under Sec.19 of the PML Act and a person like
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 35.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

the Applicant(A3) was arrested for the discussion referred above.  The
whole discussion referred above clearly demonstrates that, it was a long
battle   of   Civil   disputes   which   delayed   the   project   and   parties   had
approached proper  and  competent forum   for  the  same;  and offences
under Sec.420, 120B IPC do not attract as there is prima­facie nothing
to show that, POC were generated by accused No.3 from the criminal
activity relating to the Predicate Offence.  When there is no offence of
cheating and criminal conspiracy i.e. Predicate Offence and any criminal
activity relating to it, there cannot be a Proceeds Of Crime.  When there
are no POC, question of arresting the applicant(A3) under Sec.19 of the
PML Act does not arise nor the rigors of stringent twin conditions under
Sec.45(1)   of   the   PML   Act   come   in   the   way   for   deciding   his   bail
application.  In order to arrest any person under Sec.19 of the PML Act
the qualification is 'reason to believe that such person has been guilty of
an offence punishable under the PML Act'.   This basic qualification is
missing in the instant case for arresting the Applicant(A3).  

44. What is prima­facie evident from the materials on record
and  statements  recorded under  Sec.50(2) and  (3) of the  PML Act is
that, the applicant(A3) was in­charge of handling the litigation arising
out of Siddharth Nagar Project.  He had to obtain individual letters from
the tenants, eviction of the tenants, field work, make correspondence
with   MHADA   and   other   authorities   relating   to   project   and   handling
various litigations.  There is absolutely nothing to show that he was part
of any criminal conspiracy for inducing and cheating 672 occupants as
well as MHADA and generating POC from the activities relating to it,
that too at the relevant time when no such FIR was lodged for those
alleged contemporary activities.  Even there is absolutely nothing before
the Court to prima­facie satisfy that, he(A3) had sold FSI relating to free
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 36.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

sale component, generated money called as POC defined under Sec.2(1)
(u) and further laundered the same as required under Sec.3 of the PML
Act.

45. There was another limb of Civil litigation relating to the
property   under   the   project,   wherein   MHADA   terminated   previous
agreements.  Volume VI Page 301 is a letter  dt.23.04.2015 relying on
MHADA's   Resolution  dt.19.01.2014  whereby   further   sale   of   free
component was stayed with direction not to issue further I.O.D.   and
C.C. for the free sale component.  The copy of document in Volume VI
indicates a joint meeting  dt.24.06.2015  with GACPL and MHADA VP
and CEO, wherein GACPL submitted revised time lines for completion
of   Siddharth   Nagar   Project.     It   is   pertinent   to   note   that   even   after
alleged   past   bitter   experience,   again   MHADA   dealt   with   GACPL   and
accepted the said revised time schedule.  On 29.04.2016 GACPL again
submitted  revised  time   lines  for   completion   of  the   construction.     On
12.05.2017 there was a meeting between GACPL and MHADA wherein
GACPL communicated revised time line for payment of balance rent to
the society, Revised Schedule of construction of the society's building,
the   balance   payment   of   MCGM   regarding   building   approvals   of   the
society's buildings and schedule of construction of MHADA share.   On
12.01.2018 MHADA, vide its letter to GACPL, terminated the Tripartite
Agreement and the said letter is at page 348 of Volume VI.  

46. Aggrieved   by   Accused   No.1   and   2   and   HDIL's   conduct,

Aggrieved tenants and certain  third party  developers approached  the
Hon'ble High Court vide Notice of Motion (L) No.180 of 2017 in Suit
(L) No.40 of 2017.   The Hon'ble High Court on 02.02.2017 directed
Accused No.1,2 and HDIL to maintain status­quo in respect of proposed
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 37.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

construction.   However,   the   Hon'ble   High   Court   vide  Order

dt.20.02.2017  permitted  accused   No.1   and   2   with   construction   of
project.  The Hon'ble High Court by an Order dt.20.02.2017 recorded
certain representations made by accused No.1 and 2, whereby both of
them undertook to comply with all the requirements of MHADA and
Municipal   Corporation   to   ensure   that   no   stop   work   notice   is   issued.
Also, it was agreed that, the Agreement and Contracts entered into with
Contractors by  defendants should  be  shared with  plaintiff  therein by
defendants No.1 and 2 (A1 and A2).  Accused No. 1 and 2 undertook to
ensure that there will be no default by them in completing the buildings
agreed to be handed over to MHADA.  It was agreed that, there will be
no   interference   in   appointment   of   any   Contractor   /   Consultant   and
defendants   No.1   and   2   shall   have   full   liberty   and   freedom   to
appoint the Contractor. 

47. The   Hon'ble   High   Court   by   an  Order   dt.14.03.2018

directed accused No.1 and 2 and their  HDIL  to disclose  (a) all  their
assets,   movable   and   immovable,   (b)   all   their   bank   accounts   and   (c)
Income Tax Returns.  This Court is therefore of the view that, ED has
either lost sight or purposely not referred all these litigations and
circumstances  of  transaction   with   such   details  in   the  PC,   for  the
reasons best known to them.  It is material to note that, ED has made
much capital regarding MHADA's termination of Tripartite Agreement,
yet the subsequent proceedings they had participated before the Hon'ble
High Court (which are referred above) clearly indicate that MHADA was
party   before   the   Hon'ble   High   Court   and   accepted   the   order
dt.14.03.2018   ignoring   termination   dt.12.01.2018.     All   such
references which are discussed above, are also referred in the orders
passed   by   the   Hon'ble   High   Court.   While   making   prima­facie
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 38.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

examination of the case for bail, all the above referred facts prima­facie
conclusively indicate that, 
a. The execution and completion of the Tripartite Agreement.
b. Dealings with Third Party Developers.
c. Receipt of Funds.

And everything whichever related to it, was managed by
Rakesh   Kumar   Wadhawan   (A1),   Sarang   Wadhawan   (A2)   and   their
HDIL.  

48. In   none   of   all   such   litigations   a   whisper   was   alleged   by

anyone including MHADA that, it was Pravin Raut(A3) who sold FSI of
Free Sale Component, generated ill­gotten money i.e. POC, and solely
responsible for the alleged liability and criminal acts as well as all that
he allegedly had done was nothing but he being puppet (Proxy, front­
man) in the hands of Sanjay Raut(A5) who, behind the curtain, was the
main culprit as alleged in the supplementary complaint for the first time
in utter disregard with deviation to their own stand of ED alleged in the
Main PC.   All that what has been discussed hereinbefore prima­facie
indicates   that,   the   applicant(A3)   was   never   party   to   any   litigation
before the Hon'ble High Court.  The fact that the Applicant(A3) was not
concerned with any affairs and in fact Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan (A1),
Sarang Wadhawan (A2) and their HDIL were dealing with everything, is
well corroborated  by various statements recorded under Sec.50(2) and
(3) of the PML Act.  

49. The  Order   dt.24.04.2018  passed   by   the   Hon'ble   High

Court restrained HDIL from disposing of its movable properties/assets,
except in the ordinary course of business.  HDIL vide Notice of Motion
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 39.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

(LODG)   No.1279   of   2018   sought   clarification   of   this   order

dt.24.04.2018.   On  06.06.2018  the Hon'ble High Court disposed of
the  same  by  noting  HDIL's  role  in  the  execution  of  Development
Agreements with Third Party Developers as follows, 

“8.   The   plaintiff's   filed   the   above   Suits   before   this   Court
impugning the termination notice dated 12th January, 2018.  At
the   ad­interim   stage,   the   Senior   Advocates   appearing   for   the
Plaintiffs   in   the   above   Suits   submitted   that   MHADA   cannot
terminate the Agreement with GACPL since the same will cause
grave harm, loss and damage to the Plaintiffs and MHADA.   It
was   submitted   on   behalf   of   MHADA,   that   GACPL   was   not
entitled   in   law   to   enter   into   any   such   Agreements   with   the
Plaintiffs and the termination notice was valid.   However, the
Plaintiffs in the above Suits as well as MHADA agreed, that
in view of the undertakings given by Shri Wadhawan in the
Meadows Suit, HDIL, which is a holding Company of GACPL,
is responsible for the misdeeds of GACPL.”

50. Wadhawans   were   holding   maximum   shares   of   GACPL

which cannot be ignored.  Yet, they were not even arrested and ED has
availed pick and choose strategy while arresting Pravin Raut(A3) and
Sanjay Raut (A5).   PC as well as supplementary complaint have not a
whisper of any of abovereferred battle of litigations, circumstances of
transaction   and   conclusive   observations   made   by   the   Hon'ble   High
Court.  Certainly all these cannot be lost of sight while deciding merits
of the bail application.  

51. Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Aabad Ponda, in order to juxtapose the
above referred observations made by the Hon'ble High Court, placed his
reliance on the  Affidavit dt.08.02.2017  filed before the Hon'ble High
Court,   wherein   Sarang   Wadhawan   (A2)   has   made   sworn   statements
which are referred in paragraph 42 above.   At the cost of repetition it
has to be noted that MHADA was party to the said litigation before the
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 40.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Hon'ble High Court.  Sarang Wadhawan (A2) has explicitly stated that,
GACPL   has   entered   into   Development   Agreements   with   third   party
developers.     After   that   vide   an  order   dt.24.04.2018  MHADA's
contention was explicitly recorded wherein it has stated “HDIL, which
is a holding company of GACPL, is responsible for the misdeeds of
GACPL”.  While making assessment of prima­facie case from the point
of twin conditions under Sec.45(1)(i)(ii) of the PML Act even without
entering   into   any   mini­trial,   prima­facie   all   this   glaringly   establishes
that the purported wrongdoings alleged in the Prosecution Complaint
were   always   done   by   Rakesh   Kumar   Wadhawan   (A1),   Sarang
Wadhawan   (A2)   and   their   HDIL.     Even   it   is   MHADA   who   has
consistently adopted the said position.  Admittedly Pravin Raut (A3) or
even Sanjay Raut (A5) were never related to HDIL.  Nor MHADA ever
alleged   in   the   FIR   relating   to   Scheduled   Offence   that   even   Rakesh
Kumar Wadhawan (A1), Sarang Wadhawan (A2) and their HDIL were
front entities rather puppets in the hands of Sanjay Raut(A5) which for
the first time they have alleged as such in the supplementary complaint
against   Sanjay   Raut(A5).     Certainly   this   aspect   cannot   be
overlooked.  

SALE OF F.S.I. OF FREE SALE COMPONENT
52. In   the   background   of   above   detailed   discussion,   judicial
note of misdeeds of Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan (A1), Sarang Wadhawan
(A2) and their HDIL taken  by the Hon'ble High Court, and available
quality   materials   with   PC   as   well   as   which   have   been   filed   by   the
Applicant(A3),   it   is   prima­facie   established   that   during   Pravin   Raut's
(A3) tenure with GACPL he(A3) was never involved in any decisions
relating   to   alleged   exploitation   of   FSI   on   that   land.     In   fact,   after
registration   of   FIR,   Rakesh   and   Sarang   (A1   and   A2)   entered   into
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 41.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

development   agreements   with   various   third   party   developers   and

generated  the  FSI  sale  proceeds.   Further,  scrutiny  of   bank  accounts
referred in the PC reveals that the sale proceeds of FSI were transferred
to HDIL and its group companies.   There is nothing to show that the
Applicant(A3)   has   received   any   amount   from   the   alleged   FSI   sale
proceeds.     The   tables   referred   in   the   PC   nowhere   reflect   Applicant's
(A3) name or any bank account in relation to whether he has received
any amount from the customer, third party developers or any amount
has been transferred to him otherwise.  

53. On   the   contrary   ED's   own   case   which   it   (ED)   had   put
before the Adjudicating Authority vide OC 1396 of 2021 is that, Pravin
Raut (A3) received Rs.95 Crore from Outstanding Loan which was
illegally   availed   by   the   HDIL   from   Punjab   and   Maharashtra   Co­
operative Bank Ltd. (PMC). Their own contention of ED as such prima­
facie demolishes their case alleged in the Prosecution Complaint that,
Rs.95 Crore Pravin Raut (A3) had generated and placed by illegal
sale of free component FSI.   These self contradictory contentions of
ED,  clearly   indicate   that   no  evidence   is   required   to   prima­facie   hold
that, entire money trail which allegedly pertains to FSI sale proceeds is
prima­facie nothing but a false and feigned contention put forth by the
ED, which basically has absolutely no link with the Applicant(A3).  All
this   prima­facie   goes   to   show   how   the   ED   is   doing   approbate   and
reprobate.  

54. In the aforesaid premises argument of Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr.
Aabad Ponda prima­facie justifies that, the restrictions contained in the
obligations recited in the Tripartite Agreement were relatable only to
the component of the project accruing to the benefit of MHADA and the
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 42.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

tenants, which component was ascertained in the Tripartite Agreement.
In this regard, the restrictions recited in  Clause 9.3  of the Tripartite
Agreement   in   the   capacity   of   Assignment   of   Rights   contained   in   the
Tripartite   Agreement,   were   relatable   only   to   the   component   of   the
project   accruing   to   the   benefit   of   MHADA   and   the   tenants,   which
component was ascertained as per the  Tripartite  Agreement.   Hence,
contention of ED that the transfer of FSI to third party developers was
in   violation   of   Tripartite   Agreement,   is   unfounded   and   prima­facie
baseless. 

WHETHER RS.95 CRORE ARE PROCEEDS OF CRIME (POC) IN VIEW
OF ED's ATTITUDE OF APPROBATE AND REPROBATE FOR THE
SAME?

55. ED has taken  two/three different stands and contentions

about POC.   First and the basic contention of ED is that, Pravin Raut
(A3) has received Rs.95 Crore out of Rs.1039.79 Crore of alleged POC
generated by selling FSI of free sale component.  Second contention of
ED is referred in an unnumbered paragraph 3, lines No.4,5 and 6 on
page 43 of the Main PC.   Wherein, it is specifically alleged as, “It is
further   revealed   that   Pravin   Raut   (A3)   has   received  huge  amount
around  Rs.100 Crore  from HDIL from the period of 2008­10”.   Third
contention of ED is in the supplementary complaint filed against Sanjay
Raut   (A5)   as   well   as   paragraph   9.11   on   page   No.27   of   the   main
Prosecution Complaint wherein it is alleged as, “It is further revealed
that Pravin Raut (A3) has received around  Rs.112 Crore  from HDIL
during the period 2008­2010 in the multiple installments and he(A3)
failed   to   give   any   valid   reasons   for   transfer   of   such   funds   in   his
account”.     In   this   way,   general   words   like  “huge”   “around”
“approximately” “multiple installments” are used for specifying those
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 43.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

accounts when the test is that of beyond reasonable doubt.  

56. Quantum of POC claimed by ED in paragraph 11 at page
38 of the Main PC, it is alleged as follows, 
“11. Quantum of POC  :
GuruAshish Construction Pvt. Ltd has illegally sold the FSI to third
party developers and raised Rs.1048.96 Crore.   Out of this amount
Rs.147.17 Crore has been paid to Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai.    Further GuruAshish   Construction  Pvt.  Ltd.  through  HDIL
launched   a   project   in   the   year   2010   namely   MEADOWS   at   Patra
Chawl,   Goregaon   and   against   bookings   from   458   home   buyers   an
amount of Rs.138 Crore were collected.  Thus, for illegal sale of FSI
the   accused   has   generated   total   amount   of   Rs.1039.79   Crore.
Accordingly,  approx.  Rs. 1039.79 Crore were received in the bank
account of GuruAshish, HDIL and its group companies during the year
2010­14.   Some part  of these amounts were utilised in developing
the project which remains incomplete.   Whereas  most of the funds
were siphoned off  to various accounts.   The Company had availed
Terms loans from Union Bank of India round Rs.100 Crore by way of
Non­Convertible   Debentures   and  around  Rs.215   Crore   from   IL&FS
Ltd.  Some   part  of   these   amount   were   utilised   in   developing   the
project which remains incomplete.  Whereas most of the funds were
siphoned   off.     The   entire   amount   totalling   to   Rs.1039.79   Crore
illegally collected by unauthorised sale of FSI is the Proceeds of Crime
in terms of Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA,2002. The investigation is under
progress to trace the proceeds of the crime.

57. It is material to note that even ED also pleaded in the Main
Prosecution  Complaint  the  specific  role  of  Rakesh  (A1),  Sarang  (A2)
Wadhawans in paragraph 13.01 on page 42 in following words,
“Rakesh   Wadhawan   and   his   son   Sarang   Wadhwan   were   the
Directors   of   Guru   Ashish   Construction   Pvt   Ltd   and   also   the
decision   makers.  The   decision   to   sale   the   FSI   was   decided   by
them   and   also   decided   the   utilisation   of   the   proceeds   of   sale.
They have siphoned of the subject sale proceeds to their other
companies forming the part of HDIL.   Thus, at the time of the
contravention   was   committed   Rakesh   Wadhawan   and   his   son
Sarang   Wadhawan   were   in   charge   of   all   of   the   affairs   of   the
company and all the illegalities of unauthorised sale of FSI and
siphoning   off   funds   were   taken   place   with   their   active
involvement.   Being the authorised person to operate the bank
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 44.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

accounts they have siphoned off the proceeds generated out of
sale of FSI according to their whims and fancies”.  

   Each and every word, as above, pleaded by the ED in PC
paragraph No.13.01 clearly shows that even ED has not disputed this
situation that, A1, A2 and their HDIL are the sole persons in generating,
placing, layering and integrating the alleged POC.  This basic admitted
fact   which   dispense   with   the   proof   thereof   even   at   this   prima­facie
stage.     Short   paragraph   beneath   the   above   paragraph   in   PC   is   the
conclusion drawn by the ED regarding A1, A2, GACPL and their alleged
involvement in an offence under Sec.3 r.w. Sec.4 of the PML Act.  Own
materials   of   ED   prima­facie   make   it   crystal   clear   that   ED   itself   had
attributed   prime   role   to   Wadhawans   (A1   and   A2)   that,   they   were
Directors of GACPL and sole decision makers, who were in­charge of all
the   affairs   of   the   company   at   the   time   when   contravention   was
committed and further all illegalities of unauthorized sale of FSI and
siphoning   off   funds   were   taken   place   with   their   active   involvement.
This duo being authorized persons to operate the bank accounts had
siphoned off the proceeds generated out of alleged sale of FSI according
to their whims and fancies.  It was already discussed in detail how the
Hon'ble High Court recorded the conclusive findings holding the same.
Even Affidavit of Sarang (A2) filed in the Hon'ble High Court in one of
such proceedings contains his sworn statement admitting everything as
referred above.  Even MHADA who is now making hue and cry to hush
up   its   own   wrongs   by   filing   FIR   No.22   of   2018,   had   also   clearly
consented all this before the Court of Law.  What more is required for
prima­facie   holding   that   Pravin   Raut(A3)   has   absolutely   no   role   or
whatsoever   concern   with   such   activities   of   Rakesh(A1),   Sarang(A2),
their HDIL and also GACPL.   So how Pravin Raut(A3) can be prima­
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 45.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

facie   held   as   'Generator   and   Launderer'   of   money   (POC)   Rs.95

Crore/Rs.100 Crore/Rs.112 Crore/Rs.1039.79 Crore?

58. Another aspect requires consideration.  In both prosecution
complaints ED has alleged that, Pravin Raut(A3) is generator of POC
and recipient of Rs.95 Cr./Rs.100 Cr./Rs.112 Cr. thereof.  Some out of
it,   he   (A3)   further   transferred   to   his   wife   and   the   wife   of   Sanjay
Raut(A5).  It is a fact that the ED on 31.12.2020 in relation to separate
ECIR/MBZO­I/09/2019 took Order No.16 of 2020 i.e. for Provisional
Attachment Order (PAO) and provisionally attached various properties
of the Applicant(A3) worth approximately  Rs.72 Crore.   Basis for this
action was the allegation that, HDIL had availed huge illegal loan from
PMC Bank and total Rs.6117.93 Crore thereof was outstanding.   Next
contention   for   the   said   PAO   was   that   HDIL   had   paid   an   amount   of
Rs.95 Crore to the applicant(A3).  For that Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Aabad
Ponda   filed   copy   of   PAO   No.16   of   2020   in  F.No.ECIR/MBZO­
I/09/2019   dt.31.12.2020.    It   is   necessary   to   reproduce   relevant
portions from OC 1396 of 2021 as follows,
“The total outstanding loan of INR 6117.93 crores from PMC Bank to
HDIL Group constitute the proceeds of crime.”

9.1 Investigation also revealed that from the aforesaid proceeds
of   crime   M/s.   HDIL   paid   an   amount   of   INR   95   Crores   to   Mr.
Pravin Raut.”

“... Thus, during investigation, it was revealed that Pravin Raut has
received Rs.95 Crores from HDIL, which has availed loans from
PMC   Bank   fraudulently   and   this   money   has   been   utilised   for
purchase of land in Palghar Taluka...”

   So,  this  contention  of   ED itself   clearly  indicates  that   the

source of Rs.95 Crore received by Pravin Raut(A3) from HDIL is out of
outstanding loan availed by HDIL (A1 and A2) from the PMC Bank.  On
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 46.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

25.01.2021  ED  filed  and  Original   Complaint  No.1396  of  2021  (  OC

No.1396 of 2021) under Sec.5(5) of the PML Act before the Hon'ble
Adjudicating Authority with a specific contention as such about  Rs.95
Crore.     Thereafter,   responding   notice   dt.05.02.2021   issued   by   the
Hon'ble   Adjudicating   Authority,   the   applicant(A3)   filed   his   detailed
reply   on   25.03.2021   and   disclosed   sources   of   acquisition   contending
that Rs.95 Crore alleged POC are legitimate and arise out of genuine
transaction and also the same he received much prior to 2011, when
HDIL availed the loan for the first time from the PMC Bank.  In this way
the Applicant(A3) contended how the said Rs.95 Crore are not a part of
POC.  

59. The   Hon'ble   Adjudicating   Authority   confirmed

provisionally   attached   properties   of   the   Applicant(A3)   vide  Order
dt.14.12.2021.     The   Applicant(A3)   challenged   it   before   the   Hon'ble
Delhi High Court vide  Writ Petition (C) 10681 of 2021  pointing out
that 180 days have been lapsed in June, 2021 itself.  The Hon'ble Delhi
High Court vide order  dt.23.09.2021  directed that final order of the
Hon'ble  Adjudicating  Authority   ought   not   to   be   implemented   till   the
question of law involved in the Writ Petition is finally decided by the
Hon'ble   Division   Bench   of   the   Hon'ble   Delhi   High   Court.     Ld.   Sr.
Counsel   Mr.   Aabad   Ponda   further   pointed   out   that   the   Order
dt.14.12.2021   passed   by   the   MUM/Adjudicating   Authority   has   been
challenged before  the Hon'ble PMLA Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
vide  FPA/PMLA/2022 and the same is pending.

60. All this prima­facie glaringly demonstrates how the ED had
taken   altogether   different   self­contradictory   rather   self­destructive
stands for claiming the same POC Rs.95 Crore.  At the cost of repetition
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 47.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

it has to be noted that, the same amount of Rs.95 Crore, ED has been
alleging as POC for two altogether different ECIRs.   On one hand in
ECIR   2019,   ED's   case   in   the   OC   1396   of   2021   is   that   Rs.95   Crore
received   by   the   Applicant(A3)   forms   a   part   of   the   outstanding   loan
which was taken by HDIL from the PMC Bank.  On the other hand, ED
has   taken   exact   self­contradictory   stand   in   the   present   PC   making
allegations   against   the   Applicant(A3)   by   contending   the   same   Rs.95
Crore   being   the   alleged   FSI   Sale   Proceeds,   which   is   not   established
prima­facie.  All this prima­facie indicates that Rs.95 Crore has neither
any connection nor does it form a part of alleged FSI Sale Proceeds i.e.
Rs.1039.79   Crore.     ED   may   take   such   two   altogether   different   self­
contradictory   rather   self­destructive   stands,   but   the   same   cannot   be
acknowledged at law, when the serious question of Right of Liberty of a
person is before the Court.  

61. At   the   cost   of   repetition,   it   is   necessary   to   refer   three

different stands taken by ED which are as follows,
a. HDIL (A1 and A2) are generators of Proceeds of Crime through
illegal   loan   and   Pravin   Raut(A3)   is   recipient   of   Rs.95   Crore
thereof.
b. In Prosecution Complaint against the Applicant(A3) it is alleged
that,   he(A3)   is   generator   of   POC   and   also   recipient   of   Rs.95
Crore thereof.
c. In  Supplementary Complaint against Sanjay  Raut(A5)  ED  now
contends that neither A1, A2, their HDIL and the Applicant(A3)
are the main persons in the process of money laundering, but
Sanjay Raut(A5) is the main person behind this entire show and
Pravin Raut(A3) is his puppet, proxy, front­man who generated
POC   for   him(A5)   and   allegedly   paid   a   meager   thereof
Rs.1,06,44,375   (Main   PC)   and     Rs.3,27,85,475
(Supplementary Complaint)  to Sanjay Raut(A5).   In this way,
ED itself contends that Sanjay Raut (A5) who is the main person
behind the curtain did all these things for  Rs.1,06,44,375 and
Rs.3,27,85,475. Whereas his frontier and A1,A1, HDIL, GACPL
received huge i.e. Rs.1039.79 Crore. 
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 48.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

  Such self­contradictory rather self­destructive, incompatible
stands   taken   by   ED   cannot   be   acknowledged   at   law,   even   at   the
preliminary stage of prima­facie assessment of the case for bail.  What
ED has done as such leads to draw two prima­facie inferences.  Firstly,
if contention of ED in ECIR 2019 and PAO thereof is accepted, then
there   is   no   POC   involved   in   the   present  ECIR/MBZO­I/80/2021
dt.08.09.2021  in respect of the Applicant(A3).  Secondly, if contention
of ED in the present case (ECIR/MBZO­I/80/2021)  is accepted, same
clearly indicates that, ED has dragged the Applicant(A3) in ECIR 2019
by   falsely  implicating   him.     All   this  further  clearly   indicates   that  ED
itself suggests that, if POC (Rs.95 Crore/Rs.112 Crore) alleged against
the Applicant(A3) herein is true, then the POC Rs.95 Crore they have
contended earlier in ECIR 2019 is false and should be disbelieved.  If ED
wants to rely on Rs.95 Crore POC alleged in ECIR 2019 being true, then
whatever contended by them in the present ECIR/MBZO­I/80/2021 is
presumed to be false and should be disbelieved.  In this way prima­facie
it is evident that, ED has blown hot and cold.  All this is nothing but a
Classic  example   of   “Approbate   and   Reprobate”,   which   cannot   be
acknowledged at  law.   One  cannot  approbate and  reprobate  and
blow   hot   and   cold.     If   someone   does   so   and   Court   upholds   the
same, that will   amount  putting  premium  on   such   approbate and
reprobate attitude.  Certainly Court cannot do as such.  

62. Next   aspect   which   requires   consideration   is   that,   after

giving details of money trail in the prosecution complaint, pursuant to
the Bail Application (Exh.8), ED filed its Reply(Exh.8A) and referred
various  new  details  of   alleged  money  trail,  which  were  basically  not
given in the PC.  For that ED has given a table on page No.13 of their
say/reply   (Exh.8A).     The   said   table   refers   certain   transactions   from
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 49.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

three   entities   –   Bhoomi   Shashwat   Estate   Pvt.   Ltd.,   Ekta   Everglade

Homes and Kiyana Ventures LLP.  Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Aabad Ponda in
his oral as well as written submissions pointed out following facts :­
a. In the reply (Exh.8A) page 13 Items No.9, 10, 11, 12 and 14
relating to certain new transactions from Bhoomi to the HDIL,
PMC Bank account, have been added, which basically have no
place in the PC.
b. None   of   the   transactions   from   Bhoomi   mentioned   in   PC   and
reply   (Exh.8A),  shows that  those  amounts  were  transferred   to
the personal account of the Applicant(A3).
c. Similarly two transactions mentioned at Items 16 and 17, page
14 of reply (Exh.8A) to show that, monies from Ekta have been
transferred   to   HDIL,   PMC   bank   account.   However,   as   per
complaint in relation to the same transactions from Ekta (page
29 PC Items 1 and 3) monies were further transferred to certain
accounts   of   other   entities   and   not   to   the   account   of   the
Applicant(A3).  
d. Two transactions mentioned at Items 18 and 19 at page 14 of the
reply (Exh.8A) to show that the monies from Kiyana have been
transferred to HDIL, PMC Bank accounts.  Applicant's(A3) case is
that he was then paid from this account and from these moneies.
However,   as   per   the   complaint   in   relation   to   the   same
transaction   from   Kiyana   (page   34   of   PC   Items   No.2   and   3)
monies   were   further   transferred   to   certain   accounts   of   other
entities and not to the account of the Applicant(A3).  

   In   this   way,   Ld.   Sr.   Counsel   Mr.   Aabad   Ponda   rightly

pointed out that no material whatsoever either in the reply or even the
PC, contends that the applicant has received monies from the alleged
FSI Sale Proceeds.  On the contrary it is prima­facie evident that as per
ED's own case, these monies were transferred to some other entities and
not to the applicant's personal account.  

63. All this prima­facie indicates that there is no material in the
PC   or   reply   (Exh.8A)   even   to   alleged   that   the   Applicant(A3)   has
received monies from the alleged FSI Sale Proceeds.  If the case alleged
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 50.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

and pleaded in the PC is accepted as it is, these monies appear to have
been transferred to some other entities and not to the Applicant's(A3)
personal   account.     When   the   test   of   “beyond   reasonable   doubt”   is
applied prima­facie, the materials on record coupled with argument of
Ld.   Sr.   Counsel   Mr.   Aabad   Ponda   makes   the   defence   probable   on
preponderance of probabilities.  At the same time PC and argument of
Ld. SPP  Mr. Hiten  Venegavkar  has  absolutely no justification  for  the
same.     In   order   to   understand   this   aspect   with   more   clarity   Ld.   Sr.
Counsel Mr. Aabad Ponda pointed out and placed reliance on the table
which   accused   No.3   has   submitted   in   his   rejoinder   (Exh.8C).   There
cannot   be   any   hesitation   to   reproduce   the   same   as   it   will   help   to
discover   the   truth   which   is   the   ultimate   goal   of   the   criminal
trial/proceedings. Nor the Court can overlook or ignore the same when
specifically pointed out in the written submissions.  Therefore, the said
table is being reproduced as it is below, 

SR PARTY DATE  AMOUNT CORRESPONDING CORRESPON

NO NAME  (IN INR) SERIAL   NO/PAGE DING
NUMBER IN PC
BENEFICIAR
Y   AS   PER
THE PC
1. Bhoomi 15.03.2010 1 Crore  Serial No. 6 / Page TRF TO
Shashw 29 SAPPHIRE
at
PMC 1024
Estate
2. 18.03.2010 2 Crores Serial No. 7 / Page TRF TO
Pvt Ltd 
29 SAPPHIRE
PMC 1024
3. 22.03.2010 1 Crore Serial No. 8 / Page TRF TO
29 SAPPHIRE
PMC 1024
4. 07.09.2010 2 Crores Serial No. 9 / Page TRF TO
29 SAPPHIRE
PMC 1024
5. 24.10.2009 5 Crores Not   mentioned   in   the   Prosecution
Complaint 
6. 03.11.2009 2 Crores Serial   No.   14   / TRF TO HDIL
Page 29 IDBI &
VENDORS
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 51.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

7. 03.11.2009 2 Crores Not   mentioned   in   the   Prosecution

Complaint 
8. 06.11.2009 50 Lakhs  Serial No. 16 /  TRF TO
SAPPHIRE
PMC 1024
9. 09.11.2009 1 Crore Not   mentioned   in   the   Prosecution
Complaint 
10. 21.11.2009 1 Crore Not   mentioned   in   the   Prosecution
Complaint 
11. 23.11.2009 1 Crore Not   mentioned   in   the   Prosecution
Complaint 
12. 24.11.2009 1 Crore Not   mentioned   in   the   Prosecution
Complaint 
13. 20.02.2010 1 Crore Not   mentioned   in   the   Prosecution
Complaint 
14. 22.02.2010 1 Crore Not   mentioned   in   the   Prosecution
Complaint 
15. 07.01.2012 1.25 Serial   No.   23  /
TRF TO
Crores  Page 29 SATYAM
PMC 141
16. Ekta 14.09.2010 2.5 Crores Serial No. 1 / Page TRF TO
Evergla 29 SAPPHIRE
de
PMC 1024
Homes
17. 26.10.2010 5 Crores  Serial No. 3 / Page TRF TO CDM
Pvt. Ltd
29
18. Kiyana 05.10.2010 11 Crores Serial No. 2 / Page TRF TO
Venture 34 SAPPHIRE
s LLP
PMC 1024
19. 08.10.2010 14 Crores Serial No. 3 / Page TRF TO
34 SATYAM
PMC 1416

   This table and money trail shown therein clearly indicates
that whatever monies and trail thereof mentioned in the table filed with
reply   (Exh.8A)   by   the   ED,   demonstrate   that   no   monies   have   been
received by the applicant(A3) from the alleged FSI Sale Proceeds.  Such
modification vide table in the Reply (Exh.8A)   is contrary to the case
alleged by ED  in the  Prosecution  Complaint.   Even  otherwise  prima­
facie there is nothing to show that the Applicant(A3) had received any
monies out of the FSI Sale Proceeds.  It is also prima­facie evident that,
ED in their Reply (Exh.8A) dt.17.06.2022 included such entries which
do not constitute Proceeds of Crime as defined under Sec.2(1)(u) of the
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 52.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

PML Act nor any criminal activity relating to Scheduled Offence which
is the basic qualification to book any person like the Applicant(A3) for
allegedly having committed an offence of money laundering.  

64. The   next   important   aspect   relates   to   the   Supplementary

Complaint   filed   against   Sanjay   Raut(A5),   wherein   altogether   new
invention has been cropped up.  Judicial Note requires to be taken of a
fact   that   initially   only   Pravin   Raut(A3)   was   arrested   and   his   bail
application was being argued at length since its filing on 05.05.2022,
Reply   (Exh.8A)  dt.21.06.2022  onwards.     In   this   way,   the   bail
application   of   the   Applicant(A3)   was   being   heard   on   the   basis   of
specific role PC attributed to him.  Hearing of this bail application was
going   on   from   June,   2022.     In   the   meantime   ED   arrested   Sanjay
Raut(A5)  on  01.08.2022.   Investigation  in  respect  of   Supplementary
Complaint against him (A5) was allegedly going on.   PC against the
Applicant(A3) was filed on 07.04.2022.  In this way, in the meantime
prior to filing of Supplementary Complaint against Sanjay Raut(A5), the
present Applicant(A3) had disclosed his defence by way of two volumes
of   this   bail   application,   detailed   written   submissions   (Exh.8B   and
Exh.8E).     Therefore,   filing   of   Supplementary   Complaint   deviating
earlier stand taken in the Main PC by ED attributing main role to Sanjay
Raut(A5) speaks volumes.  

65. The   basic   case   of   ED   in   the   Main   PC   was   that   it   is   the

Applicant(A3)   who   generated   POC   and   received   Rs.95   Crore/Rs.100
Crore/Rs.112 Crore out of Rs.1039.79 Crore and further transferred a
very meager of Rs.1.06 Crore to his wife and then to the wife of Sanjay
Raut(A5).  In this background Supplementary Complaint against Sanjay
Raut(A5) came with an altogether new invention that it was not the
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 53.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Applicant(A3), but Sanjay Raut(A5) is the main person/culprit who was
doing all such activities behind the curtain and the Applicant(A3) was
his proxy, front­man and a puppet in the  hands of Sanjay Raut(A5).
Hence,   the   case   took   a   miraculous   twist   by   way   of   Supplementary
Complaint,  thereby   making  'Dramatis  Personae'  and  transposing  the
roles attributed to them (A3 nd A5).  And hence, Sanjay Raut(A5) was
attributed a Prime Role which he allegedly played by keeping himself
behind the curtain.   While attributing such Main Role to Sanjay Raut
(A5),   prosecution   completely  forgot   that   everywhere   in  the   Main   PC
they   had   attributed   Main   Role   to   Rakesh   Kumar   Wadhawan   (A1),
Sarang Wadhawan (A2) and their HDIL, making them responsible even
for GACPL, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court.  

66. In this way, in the Supplementary Complaint dt.15.09.2022
ED levelled following allegations against the Applicant(A3),

a. The   Applicant   (A3)   received   Rs.112   Crore   in   his   bank

account   from   HDIL   in   the   guise   of   Sale   of   Equity   and
Redevelopment of the project during 2010­11.  Out of this,
Rs.1.06 Crore was moved from the  Applicant's (A3) bank
account to the bank account's of Sanjay Raut(A5) and his
wife.  
b. For   the   nexus   of   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   with   this   project   it   is
alleged that, Secretary, Housing Department on 14.08.2006
prepared an internal note contending that the then Union
Agriculture   Minister   had   desired   a   discussion   for   the
redevelopment   of   the   Siddharth   Nagar   Project.     Sanjay
Raut(A5) had participated the said meeting and indicated
that redevelopment of Siddharth Nagar Project as per GR of
year 1988, is not viable.  
c. Thereafter, the Development Agreement dt.18.08.2006 was
executed between the society and GACPL for 13.8 Acres of
land for 672 tenants.  
d. Some times in September,2007 a meeting was called upon
by   the   then   Chief   Minister   to   know   the   financial
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 54.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

implications   of   the   Siddharth   Nagar   Project   as   per   the

current and proposed development control regulations.   In
the said meeting Mr. Sanjay Raut(A5), the office bearers of
the society and MHADA officers were present.  No minutes
were prepared for this meeting.  
e. Thereafter,   accused   No.1   to   3   took   entry   in   GACPL   after
changing shareholding pattern and structure by the exit of
earlier shareholders. 
f. The   initial   project   of   Siddharth   Nagar   Project   was   to
construct   rehab   for   the   tenants   in   13.8   Acres.     After   the
entry   of   Mr.   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   the   scope   of   the   project
increased   to   47   Acres.     The   role   played   by   Mr.   Sanjay
Raut(A5)   was   crucial   in   granting   the   Siddharth   Nagar
Project to GACPL.   He introduced Pravin Raut (A3) as his
front in GACPL at 25% share without any investment in the
company.  
g. Mr.   Pravin   Raut(A3)   was   a   proxy   and   confidante   of   Mr.
Sanjay   Raut(A5).     Due   to   the   understanding   between
Accused No.1,2 and 5, the Applicant(A3) was inducted in
GACPL and was authorised to liaise with MHADA on behalf
of GACPL.
Mr. Pravin   Raut (A3)  was a   close  a  friend of  Mr. Sanjay
Raut(A5) and was authorised to correspond with MHADA
and other local authorities. Mr. Pravin Raut (A3) obtained
favourable approvals from MHADA and was able to sell FSI
to   developers,   due   to   his   proximity   with   Mr.   Sanjay
Raut(A5).
h. Cash   worth   INR   13.6   Crores   was   withdrawn   from   the
account of accused No.4 by accused No.1 and 2.  Mr. Sanjay
Raut   has   been   connected   with   the   purported   proceeds   of
crime by stating that,“Sanjay Raut has acquired many assets
during the period the POC was siphoned off and also cash
amount   has   been   used   by   Sanjay   Raut   and   for   acquiring
some of these assets and also for meeting various personal
expenses.”     The  cash   received  by   Accused  No.5   has  been
utilised to acquire assets in Kihim, Alibaug.
i. Accused No.1,2,3 and 5 have conspired with each other and
indulged in the offence of money­laundering.
  
  
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 55.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

67. These are the main allegations made in the Supplementary
Complaint against Sanjay Raut(A5) . I have already noted on the basis
of materials available with the prosecution complaint and the copies of
documents filed by the Applicant(A3) that basically the prosecution is
failed to point out the proceeds of crime, as claimed in the complaint.  I
have also noted how the prosecution has blown hot and cold by making
approbate and reprobate for the same and also how it claimed the same
Rs.95 Crores being Proceeds of Crime in this as well as 2019 ECIR.   I
have also noted how such approbate and reprobate attitude of the ED
cannot be acknowledged at law when the serious question of liberty of
the   Applicant(A3)   is   before   the   Court.     I   have   also   noted,   how   the
alleged Proceeds of Crime Rs.95 Crore, Rs.100 Crore and Rs.112 Crore
alleged in the Main PC cannot be a Proceeds of Crime at all, as defined
under Sec.2(1)(u) of the PML Act.   In this background the miraculous
invention  made  by way  of  Supplementary  Complaint  transposing  the
basic   role   attributed   to   the   Applicant(A3)   to   a   secondary   role   being
front­man of Sanjay Raut(A5) and attributing the main role to Sanjay
Raut (A5), is material aspect which cannot be ignored while allowing or
even rejecting the application.   So called  Office  Note dt.14.08.2006
prepared by Secretary, Housing Department reflecting desire of the then
Union Agriculture Minister and participation of Sanjay Raut(A5) in the
said meeting as well as meeting with the then Chief Minister which has
no record or basis of any minutes, and, the statement of Mr. Chandan
Kelekar are the only two things, whereby the present Applicant(A3) and
Sanjay Raut(A5) are now claimed to be accused.  

68. It   is   contention   of   ED   that   PC   Rs.1039.79   Crore   POC

received   in   the   account   of   GACPL   by   the   sale   of   FSI   to   third   party
developers (para 11 at page 38 of the PC).  It is also alleged that, the
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 56.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

said total POC received in the account of GACPL was further diverted to
HDIL   and   its   associate   entities.     Even   I   have   already   reproduced
paragraph 11 in the Main PC and exhaustively discussed how ED has
held Rakesh (A1), Sarang (A2) and their HDIL solely responsible for
generating POC and laundering it.   Not only this but, I have already
discussed in detail how the Hon'ble High Court took the note of this fact
and held A1, A2 and HDIL responsible for the misdeeds in respect of
GACPL.     I   have   also   noted   the   stand   taken   by   MHADA   everywhere
consenting and admitting this situation.   I have also   noted how even
MHADA   has   not   pointed   any   finger   of   objection   towards   the
Applicant(A3) or even Sanjay Raut(A5) at the relevant time right from
the beginning i.e. from 2006­07 till before resignation of Applicant(A3)
in 2013 and thereafter, till 2018 (even after registration of FIR No.22 of
2018) before the Hon'ble High Court in various proceedings.   Records
further clearly show that even after termination of Tripartite Agreement
and Modification Deed, MHADA went on negotiating with Rakesh(A1),
Sarang(A2)   and   HDIL   and   also   accepted   the   verdicts   of   the   Hon'ble
High   Court   wherein   Sarang(A2)   had   filed   Affidavit   making   a   sworn
statement how he, Rakesh (A1) and HDIL had executed 12 agreements
with third party developers for the sale of FSI.  

69. It   has   to   be   noted   that,   contention   of   ED   without   any

particulars   of   time   and   minutes   of   meetings   with   the   then   Union
Minister and the then Chief Minister, Sanjay Raut and top Government
Officer Secretary of Housing Department, has prima­facie absolutely no
corroboration.  Statement of Mr. Chandan Kelekar has to be viewed in
this background, even if statements under Sec.50(2) and (3) of the PML
Act   carry   weight.     The   quality   of   that   statement   can   be   looked   into
without touching the aspect of its appreciation for arriving at prima­
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 57.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

facie opinion.  Merits of such statement is certainly a matter of trial, but
the   quality   of   the   said   material   can   be   seen   in   the   background   of
stringent twin conditions under Sec.45(1)(i)(ii) of the PML Act and as
held   by   the   Hon'ble   High   Court   in  the   case   of  Anil   Vasantrao
Deshmukh   Vs. State of Maharashtra (Bail Application No.1021 of
2022, decided on 04.11.2022).

70. It   is   an   admitted   fact   that   once   upon   a   time   the

Applicant(A3) and his wife, Ms. Swapna Patkar, Mr. Sujit Patkar, Sanjay
Raut(A5) and his wife were close family friends.  All of them had some
trips   and   also   purchased   properties.     If   they   had   purchased   any
properties as such, and Ms. Swapna Patkar makes any statements, does
not mean that such properties are purchased from the POC, when this
Court has formed a prima­facie opinion that basically there is no POC.
Therefore, quality of material of such statements can be seen.   

71. Careful   reading   of   statement   of   Mr.   Chandan   Kelekar,

Architect,  dt.25.08.2022, who claims to have a Photographic Memory
and   answer   given   by   him   to   first   question   begins   with  “I   do   not
remember the exact date”.  Further “I do not know the reasons for
exit of Mr. Nippun Thakkar, but “as told by Shri Mansukhbhai Sureja”.
All this prima­facie indicates this material (his statement) is based on
hearsay facts and some of them are beyond his remembrance.  The date
of this second statement dt.25.08.2022 wherein he refers the meetings
of the then Union Agriculture Minister, Chief Minister, Sanjay Raut(A5)
and another with the then Chief Minister etc. is crucial.   Because all
these facts he had disclosed for the first time on 25.08.2022,  when the
main   Complaint   against   the   applicant(A3)   was   already   filed,   he(A3)
had   already   disclosed   his   defence   in   two   big   volumes   of   this   bail
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 58.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

application.  Even some written submissions made on his behalf for the
bail application were also on record when investigation in respect of
Supplementary Complaint was allegedly going on.  Therefore, this date
25.08.2022 regarding second statement of Chandan Kelekar is material
and significant.  It is because previously when the investigation against
the Applicant(A3) was going on prior to filing of the Main PC, this Mr.
Chandan  Kelekar   had submitted  his  first   statement  under  Sec.50(2)
and (3) of the PML Act on  17.09.2021.   It is material to note that in
this first statement he has not even whispered about any such meeting
among the  then  Union  Minister, Chief  Minister, MHADA Officers, he
himself etc. But it is only after the Applicant(A3) filed two big volumes
of   this   bail   application   with   written   submissions   and   made   out   his
defence.   For the first time on  25.08.2022,  Mr.  Chandan Kelekar has
made statement as follows,
“Firstly, in around September 2007 a meeting was called upon
by   the   then   Hon'ble   Chief   Minister   of   Maharashtra,   Shri
Vilasrao Deshmukh to know the financial implications of the
project   as   per   the   current   as   well   as   the   future   proposed
Development Control Regulations.  In this meeting Shri Sanjay
Raut, the office bearer of Patra Chawl viz Shri Rajaran Shinde,
Shri   P.Y.   Shinde,   Coordinator,   Shri   Gavas,  the   MHADA
Officers viz T. Chandrashekhar (V.P.), Chief Officer, Legal
Adviser,  Chief  Engineer,   Chief  Architect  were  present.  On
being asked I state, I was also present in the meeting being the
project   Architect.   After   understanding   the   financial
implications in this Project, Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh suggested
that   the   proposal   should   be   first   concluded   in   the   MHADA
Authority meeting and thereafter to be forwarded to the Govt.
for   its   approval.    On   being   asked   if   any   minutes   were
prepared   for   the   meeting   I   state   that   no   minutes   were
prepared  only   directions   were   given   to   get   the   proposal
sanctioned from the authority.”

   Admittedly,   he   has   not   stated   anything   as   such   in   his

previous   statement  dt.17.09.2021  during   investigation   against   the
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 59.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Pravin Raut(A3) and for the first time he is stating as such when the
applicant(A3)   had   made   out   his   case   in   two   big   volumes   of   bail
application  and written arguments.   All this speaks volumes pointing
out that this material is not of a quality to decide the fate of this bail
application relating to the serious question of applicant's liberty.  Apart
from   this,   another   important   aspect   has   to   be   considered   that,   such
statement of Mr.Chandan Kelekar indicates that high positional MHADA
and Government officers were present for the said alleged meeting of
the then Chief Minister that too without recording any minutes thereof.
Throughout, right from the beginning even till date before the Hon'ble
High Court, MHADA was party to all the Civil litigations relating to this
project.  Even MHADA who were/are one of the parties before the the
Hon'ble   Bombay   High   Court,   had   not   whispered   about   this   aspect
throughout including in the course of investigation relating to the Main
PC.     This   speaks   volumes   which   cannot   be   taken   lightly   nor   can   be
ignored.     Therefore,   the   whole   story   which   has   been   cropped   up
alleging against and implicating Sanjay Raut(A5) for the first time by
way of Supplementary Complaint is based mainly on this statement of
Mr.Chandan Kelekar, which is basically not a good quality material, as
held   by   the   the   Hon'ble   Bombay   High   Court   in   the   case   of  Anil
Vasantro   Deshmukh     Vs.   State   of   Maharashtra   (Bail   Application
No.1021 of 2022, decided on 04.10.2022) (the part of observations
of the Hon. High Court in Anil Deshmukh regarding such statement
being not quality material, has to be referred.).  
  This is the first statement in the Supplementary Complaint
against   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   and   thereafter   ED   did  'Dramatis   Personae'
and  transposed the role of the Applicant(A3) and attributing main role
to Sanjay Raut(A5).   Except this statement there is absolutely nothing
against   the   Applicant(A3)   and   even   against   Sanjay   Raut(A5).   Even
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 60.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

otherwise   also   his   statement   prima­facie   demonstrates   that   the

Applicant(A3)   was   liasoning   with   MHADA,   occupants   and   the   same
which supports the contentions of the Applicant(A3).
  
72. Careful examination of the statement dt.21.02.2022 of Mr.
Parag Munot recorded under Sec.50(2) and (3) of the PML Act, clearly
indicates that he specifically stated how HDIL was marketing for selling
the Development Rights/FSI in Siddharth Nagar.  He further states that
in an around August­September,2010 they had a meeting with Rakesh
Wadhawan(A1) and Sarang Wadhawan (A2) of HDIL .  Stepping head
he   further   clearly   states   that  he   had   not   interacted   with   Pravin
Raut(A3) relating to this project.  As such there is no interaction with
him, however, in one meeting with Rakesh Wadhawan(A3) and Sarang
Wadhawan (A2) in HDIL Tower, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan (A1)
introduced Pravin Raut(A3).  

73. Careful   perusal   of   the   statement   dt.21.02.2022   of

Mr. Manish Agarwal recorded under Sec.50(2) and (3) of the PML Act
indicates he clearly stated that they came to know about the  project
from market sources and contacted Mr. Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan (A1),
Director of GACPL, who gave him information of the project referring to
the Resolution dt.30.07.2011.   He further states that only Rakesh(A1)
was interacting with them and they had not interacted with any other
persons.  On further asking him he further states that, he had never met
Sarang   Wadhawan   (A2)   and   their   only   point   of   contact   was   Rakesh
Wadhawan(A1).  

74. Statement   of   Ashok   Mohanani   dt.22.02.2022   recorded

under Sec.50(2) and (3) of the PML Act indicates that, he was asked
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 61.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

with whom he and his persons from Ekta Everglade Home Pvt. Ltd were
interacting for the project? While answering it, he specifically referred
the   names  Rakesh  Kumar   Wadhawan   (A1),   Sarang  Wadhawan   (A2),
Mr. Ashok Gupta, Director of HDIL, Avinash Vyvhare, In­house Architect
of HDIL.   He was thereafter specifically  asked to explain about his
interaction with Pravin Raut (A3), Director of GACPL.  It is material
to   note   that   he   specifically   answered   as,   “Mr.   Rakesh   Kumar
Wadhawan introduced him to Mr. Pravin Raut at his office and he
met him couple of times as a courtesy”.  

75. Mr.   Liladhar   Pansania   in   his   statement   dt.22.02.2022

recorded under Sec.50(2) and (3) of the PML Act, states that, he is the
Finance   Director   of   Fist   Infra   Pvt.   Ltd   and   his   company   was   special
purpose vehicle for execution of the development at Siddharath Nagar,
Goregaon.  They were in direct contact with HDIL's Rakesh Wadhawan,
Sarang Wadhawan, Waryam Singh and there was no mediator involved
for the said purpose.  He further states that letter dt.26.07.2011 issued
by the MHADA to GACPL is part of the agreement.  Also the Resolution
dt.30.07.2011 by the Society is a part of the Agreement.   He further
states   that   their   Director   Mr.   Kelwin   Singh   interacted   with   Rakesh
Wadhawan   of   GACPL,   Mr.   Kelwin   Singh   was   supplying   ready   mix
concrete to HDIL at their various sites from 2008 onwards and as such
HDIL   and   its   promoters   were   known   to   his   Directors   as   they   being
suppliers   of   HDIL.     He   further   specifically   stated   that   he   had   never
interacted with Pravin Raut(A3).

76. Mr.   Sukumar   Shetty   in   his   statement   dt.22.02.2022

recorded  under  Sec.50(2) and  (3)  of  the  PML  Act,  states  that, he  is
Chief   Financial   Officer   of   KBJ   Developers   Pvt.   Ltd.     He   further
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 62.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

specifically stated that Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan (A1) was the person
with whom persons from his company KBJ Developers Pvt. Ltd. were
interacting.    He   specifically  stated   that,   they   do   not   know   Pravin
Raut (A3).  

77. Mr. Akshay Jayantilal Doshi in his statement dt.02.03.2022
recorded under Sec.50(2) and (3) of the PML Act, gave answer to the
question   as   to   how   he   had   received   project   from   GACPL,   as   Rakesh
Kumar   Wadhawan   (A1)   himself   approached   him,   introduced   and
convinced him for the project of Siddharth Nagar, which is available for
investment and potential business.  He clearly states that, he had never
any interaction with Pravin Raut (A3) with regard to the dealing of the
project and Mr. Chandan Kelekar, their Project Architect introduced him
to Pravin Raut (A3), during a meeting with MHADA.  

78. Rakesh   Wadhawan   (A1)   in   his   statement   dt.24.03.2022

recorded under Sec.50(2) and (3) of the PML Act, states that, the FSI
was sold for raising finance and increasing the viability of the project.
He further stated that, money was utilised for payment of rent to the
Society members/tenants which may be in the range of Crores of rupees
(Approximately   to   600   tenants),   payment   to   MHADA   i.e.   approval
expenses   which   may   be   in   the   range   of   Rs.80   Cr.,   construction   of
tenants building Rs.180 Crore (basement+upper parking on first floor+
Ground+Stroreys),   MHADA   construction   approximately   Rs.170   Cr.,
development of infrastructure of MHADA around Rs.85 Cr., Premium to
MCGM Rs.25 Cr., construction of sale building Rs.120 Cr., besides there
were administrative expenses for the same.   He further stated that he
had paid Nippun Thakkar Rs.50 Cr. and Lokhandwala Builders was paid
Rs.14.5 Cr. and all those expenses were on account of this project. 
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 63.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

79. Even   statement   of   Mr.   Chandan   Kelekar   recorded   on

17.09.2021 under Sec.50(2) and (3) of the PML Act  clearly indicates
that,   layouts   were   prepared   as   per   instruction   of   Rakesh
Wadhawan. Statement of Jagdish Rai Agarwal dt.03.03.2022   under
Sec.50(2) and (3) of the PML Act, who is substantial Shareholder and
Director of Gold Finger Reality Investors Pvt. Ltd., looking after day­to­
day   work   of   his   company   for   taking   decision   and   implementing   the
same.   He also states that for his company he and  his persons were
interacting with Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan (A1) and they had never
any interaction with Pravin Raut (A3).  

80. Prima­facie all these statements indicate that Pravin Raut
(A3)   had   absolutely   no   role   as   alleged   in   the   PC.     He   was   simply
liasioning MHADA. Government authorities, tenants etc.   FSI was sold
to   raise   funds   and   the   same   was   as   per   the   Terms   of   Tripartite
Agreement   as   well   as   Modification   Deed.     ED   has   straightway
contended that all this was not permitted by MHADA, but the same is
against the recitals, terms and conditions in the Tripartite Agreement
and Modification Deed.  Even if their contention is accepted as it is, yet
the   Hon'ble   High   Court   has   clearly   noted   the   undertakings   given   by
Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan (A1), Sarang Wadhawan (A2) which were
consented   by   MHADA   and   further   noted   how   Wadhawans   and   their
HDIL being holding company of GACPL are responsible for misdeeds of
GACPL.     All   above   statements   prima­facie   indicates   that   Wadhawans
and not Pravin Raut(A3) was dealing with anyone for FSI and project
strategies.  

81. Apart   from   this,   Ld.   Sr.   Counsel   Mr.   Aabad   Ponda
submitted details of amount received from HDIL between 01.04.2008 to
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 64.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

14.10.2010   and   credited   to   A/c   No.000610110002514   with   Bank   of

India,   Borivali   West   Branch.     In   this   way   he   has   submitted   a   chart
showing Rs.95 Cr. received by the Applicant(A3) from 03.04.2008 till
14.10.2010.     The   charge   is   Annexure   'X'   to   Part­II   of   the   Bail
Application.  The Applicant(A3) has also filed bank statement of Pravin
Raut showing the  flow  of  these  amounts  which  prima­facie  indicates
that not a single penny he(A3) had received from any third party FSI
buyer of free sale component.  Even otherwise contention raised by ED
is PAO for ECIR 2019, itself indicates that whatever they contended in
this present ECIR is false and Pravin Raut(A3) did not receive anything.

82. Similarly   in   his   statement   Mr.   Hemant   Patil   states   his

awareness about applicant's  (A3) association  with HDIL in  Siddharth
Nagar   Project   as,   “I   am   not   linked   or   connected   with   Patra   Chawl
Redevelopment   Project”.     Prosecution   has   recorded   statements   of
number of witnesses, but I am of the opinion that unless prosecution
prima­facie   establishes   that   the   amount   of   Rs.95   Crore/Rs.100
Crore/Rs.112   Crore   is   the   POC   generated   from   the   criminal   activity
relating to the Scheduled Offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy,
that too supported by prima­facie evidence, such materials by way of
statements   cannot   become   sole   basis   for   prima­facie   holding   the
Applicant(A3) is involved and had committed in the offence of money­
laundering. Exactly here the prosecution is miserably failed to prima­
facie   establish   that   alleged   Rs.95   Cr./Rs.100   Cr./Rs112   Cr.   is   an
outcome of criminal activity relating to Scheduled Offence in order to
hold the same Proceeds of Crime as defined under Sec.2(1)(u) of the
PML Act.  On the other hand Applicant(A3) everywhere submitted that
he got Rs.50 Crore out of Rs.95 Crore from selling shares and remaining
Rs.45 Crore he got out of his efforts in settling the dispute of Irani land
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 65.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

at   Palghar.     His   contention   is   supported   by   voluminous   documents

relating to Iran land.

83. Apart from this, basically ED itself has explained how the
Applicant(A3)   got   Rs.95   Crore   and   eased   his   burden   to   explain   the
same.   ED has specifically contended that Wadhawans obtained illegal
huge loans from PMC Bank and Union Bank of India and  Rs.6117.93
Crore thereof was outstanding.  Wadhawans through HDIL transferred
Rs.95 Crore thereof to the Applicant(A3).  With this clear stand the ED
had   took   attachment  orders  from   the  Hon'ble   Adjudicating   Authority
OC   1396   of   2021.     In   this   way   it   is   the   ED   who   has   basically
explained   the   source   of   these   Rs.95   Crore   leaving   nothing   to
explain   by   the   Applicant(A3).     Apart   from   this   explanation   for
possession of said amount given by the Applicant(A3) that he received
Rs.50 Crore out of Rs.95 Crore against the sale of  Sweat Equity  and
remaining   Rs.45   Crore   from   land   deal   at   Palghar,   is   prima­facie
probable. Though the explanation given by the Applicant(A3) regarding
Rs.95 Cr. is prima­facie appears plausible and probable, even otherwise
if he fails to explain the same, at the most it would be an unaccounted
money   having   different   consequences   provided   under   the   respective
Penal Laws.  Unless the prosecution points out the said amount relates
to POC i.e. generated by criminal activity relating to Scheduled Offence,
he   (A3)   is   not   accountable   for   the   same,   particularly   in   view   of   the
recent   law   laid   down   by   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in   paragraphs
31,32, 33 in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra).  

84. Pravin Raut (A3) gave account regarding Rs.95 Crore that
Rs.50   Crore   he   received   towards   sale   of   25%   share   in   GACPL   from
Siddharth   Nagar   Project   during   01.04.2008   to   14.10.2010.     In   his
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 66.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

statement under Sec.50 of the PML Act dt.21.09.2020 while answering
question No.5 regarding remainder he received in relation to minimum
guaranteed profits in Irani land deal and Siddharath Nagar Project from
23.04.2010   to   14.10.2010.     He   has   filed   various   documents   which
prima­facie justify his role in resolving the property of Iranis situated at
Palghar.   In this way, according to him, none of these amounts were
received   during   the   period   when   the   POC   Rs.1039.79   Crore   was
received/illegally collected.  There is no document to prima­facie show
that the applicant received any POC.   On the other hand ED contends
that whatever he received i.e. Rs.95 Crore, is POC in respect of ECIR
2019, which was generated and laundered by A1,A2 and their HDIL by
illegally raising loan from PMC Bank, which itself prima­facie  proves
contention of Pravin Raut (A3).

85. In order to support his contention regarding Rs.50 Crore,
he filed the Annual Returns of GACPL dt.21.05.2010, Evincing that he
had transferred 2,49,900 shares in GACPL in favour of HDIL and 100
shares in GACPL in favour of Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan (A1).  Secondly
Form 20B filed by GACPL with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs evinces
that   during   the   financial   year   ending   31.03.2010,   he   had   no
shareholding in GACPL.  He further filed following proofs of receipt of
Rs.95 Crore.  
a. His bank statement
b. Statements   given   by   him   before   the   ED   on   21.09.2020
particularly responding questions No.3, 4 and 5.
c. Statement given by him to the ED dt.09.10.2020 responding
question No.3.
d. Statement given by him to the ED dt.01.02.2022 responding
question No.5.
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 67.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

  In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others Vs. Union of India
and   others,   [Special   Leave   Petition   (Criminal)   No.4634   of   2014,
decided   on   27.07.2022]  the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   has   held   that,
“Authority   of   the   Authorised   Officer   under   the   2002   Act   to
prosecute   any   person   for   offence   of   money­laundering   gets
triggered only if there exists proceeds of crime within the meaning
of Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002  Act and further it is involved in any
process or activity.   Not even in a case of existence of undisclosed
income and irrespective of its volume, the definition of “proceeds
of   crime”   under   Section   2(1)(u)   will   get   attracted,   unless   the
property   has   been   derived   or   obtained   as   a   result   of   criminal
activity   relating   to   a   scheduled   offence.”     Therefore,   whatever
explanation given by Pravin Raut(A3) is prima­facie satisfied, when ED
is basically failed to indicate that there is POC generated by the criminal
activity involved in the Predicate Offence.  All this clearly indicates that
Pravin Raut (A3) was illegally arrested under Sec.19 of the PML Act.

86.   On the contrary there is absolutely nothing to show that
alleged  Proceeds   of   Crime   herein   is  basically  a   proceeds  of  crime  as
defined under Sec.2(1)(u) of the PML Act.   Apart from this, the role
attributed  to  Rakesh  (A1),  Sarang(A2),  HDIL  and  GACPL   which   was
consented by MHADA and recorded by the Hon'ble High Court, itself
indicates that those Rakesh (A1) and Sarang (A2) are the main accused
persons in so called generating, placing, layering and integrating the
alleged POC. Not only this but also it is a fact that after 2013 till date
MHADA is still dealing with accused No.1 and 2 and consenting their
Affidavits before the Hon'ble High Court.     It is very astonishing that
Rakesh (A1) and Sarang (A2) with HDIL and GACPL (controlled by A1
and A2) who had allegedly generated Rs.1039.79 Cr. proceeds of Crime
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 68.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

and committed alleged money­laundering were not even arrested by the
ED under Sec.19 of the PML Act.  Even after their release under Sec.88
Cr.P.C., ED has not challenged the said order and allowed it to become
absolute and final.  On the contrary alleged meager recipients of Rs.95
Cr./Rs.100   Cr./Rs.112   (A3)   Cr.   as   well   as  Rs.1,06,44,375.  (A5)   are
behind bars from a very long time, indicating disparity.

87.     Apart   from   this,   prima­facie   it   appears   that   the   huge

battle of litigations which is going on right from the inception of the
Project (and even prior to it since 1995 when Lokhandwala Developers
were initially undertook the task, but did nothing till 2006) and the
same continued even after 2013 (A3's resignation) till date, delayed the
said   project   and   it   was   not   due   to   any   money­laundering   by   the
Applicant(A3).     I   have   already   discussed   in   detail   with   the   settled
position of law that intention of cheating right from the inception i.e.
beginning, is a material ingredient to attract offence of cheating.  I have
clearly noted that absence thereof which further goes to show that there
was no Predicate Offence.  It is also apparent that initially Accused No.3
was arrested under Sec.19 of the PML Act purely for this Civil litigation,
which is not a Predicate Offence.   Therefore, prima­facie his arrest is
completely   illegal.     Therefore,   question   of   attracting   stringent   twin
conditions   under   Sec.45(1)   of   the   PML   Act   does   not   arise.     Even
otherwise, in the background of above detailed discussion, I hold that
he(A3)   has   satisfied   the   rigors,   if   any,   of   the   twin   conditions   under
Sec.45 PML Act.   A person who is wrongfully and illegally arrested is
certainly entitled to get bail. 

88. It   is   material   to   note   that   the   Ld.   Sessions   Judge   while

granting   bail   to   the   Applicant(A3)   in   the   crime   relating   to   the
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 69.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Scheduled   Offences   Crime,   in   his   order  dt.21.03.2022  in  Bail

Application No.831 of 2020 clearly held firstly that, from the amount
misappropriated out of redevelopment work, no amount is deposited in
the bank account of the Applicant(A3).  Secondly, the applicant has not
signed   any   agreement   with   any   developer.     Thirdly,   since   2010,   the
applicant   has   not   participated   any   transaction   and   Fourthly,   the
Applicant(A3)   is   not   signatory   of   any   bank   transaction.   Admittedly,
EOW and even ED had not challenged the said Bail Order and allowed
it to become absolute.   These observations made by the Ld. Sessions
Judge   dealing   with   bail   application   in   respect   of   Scheduled   Offence
cannot be overlooked.  There is nothing to show that the Applicant(A3)
has committed breach of any conditions imposed on him vide the said
Bail Order.

89. All that what is discussed above and which is evident from
the record, material with PC, prima­facie indicates that Applicant(A3)
was   arrested   for   a   Civil   litigation   which   is   not   a   Predicate   Offence.
There   is   no   provision   to   arrest   any   person   for   a   civil   dispute   under
Sec.19 of the PML Act.  Even there is nothing before the Court to show
that right from the inception  the Applicant(A3) had any intention to
cheat either 672 occupants or even MHADA at the relevant time.  There
is nothing to show that there was any Predicate Offence, as alleged in
the FIR No.22 of 2018, at the relevant time in respect of period from
2007 to 2011.  There is nothing before the Court to show that POC was
generated during 2007 to 2011 by the present Applicant(A3) in order to
qualify his arrest under Sec.19 of the PML Act.  In this way, I am of the
opinion that after giving the Ld. S.P.P. full opportunity of hearing and
to   oppose   this   application,   this   Court   is   satisfied   that   there   are
reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant(A3) is not guilty of
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 70.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on
bail.   I, therefore, hold that the  Applicant(A3) has satisfied rigors of
twin   conditions.     At   the   cost   of   repetition   I   am   of   the   opinion   that,
basically there is no Scheduled Offence and whatever alleged is a purely
civil dispute, which is not a Predicate Offence to qualify arrest under
Sec.19   of   the   PML   Act   and   further   to   satisfy   the   rigors   of   twin
conditions under Sec.45(1) of the PML Act.  

II.   BAIL APPLICATION NO.582 OF 2022 OF SANJAY 
RAUT (A5)

90. This   applicant(A5)   was   subsequently   arrested   when   the

Prosecution Complaint against Pravin Raut (A3) was filed and his Bail
Application was being heard.   So by way of supplementary complaint
this   applicant   (A5)   is   being   prosecuted.     The   case   alleged   in   the
Supplementary Prosecution Complaint is as follows, 
FIR   No.22/2018   dt.13.03.2018   was   registered   by   EOW,
Mumbai   under   Ss.   409,   420,   120B   of   IPC   against   Rakesh
Kumar Wadhawan(A1), Sarang Wadhawan (A2) and others
on the complaint of Mr. Nitin Gadkari, Executive Engineer,
MHADA, Mumbai  as M/s. Guru Ashish Construction Pvt. Ltd.
(A4),   has   cheated   MHADA   by   floating   the   proposal   for
redevelopment   of   the   land   belonging   the   MHADA   and
including MHADA to enter into contractual arrangement for
rehabilitation   of   the   tenants.     Thereby   GACPL   obtained
permissions from MHADA to enter upon MHADA land and
carry out development activities but the Developer sold the
FSI of the free sale component and created third party rights
on the land belonging to MHADA. It is further alleged that
the said 47 acres land at Patra Chawl, Goregon belongs to
MHADA and there were 672 tenants in the said plot.  Various
permissions, approvals and additional FSIs were obtained by
M/s GACPL. The Proceeds Of Crime (POC) were generated
from   the   predicate   offences   mentioned   in   the   FIR
No.22/2018   dt.13.03.2018.   Rakeshkumar   Wadhawan   (A1),
Sarang   Wadhawan   (A2)   and   Pravin   Raut   (A3)     all   the
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 71.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Directors of M/s GACPL and Others sold FSI and generated
POC of Rs.1039.79 Crore, instead of utilizing this collected
amount of Rs.1039.79 Crore in constructions of flats for the
tenants and MHADA.  Rakesh Wadhawan (A1)and Sarang
Wadhawan   (A2)     had   diverted   majority     amounts   to
various   accounts   of   their   Companies.   Both   Rakesh
Wadhawan   (A1)   and   Sarang   Wadhawan(A2)   had   also
diverted huge amounts to Pravin  Raut  (A3)  and Others
during that period. 

91. From the investigation conducted by the ED it was revealed
that  Pravin   Raut   (A3)   received   around   Rs.112   Crore   in   his   bank
account from the bank account of M/s HDIL in the guise of sale of
equity   and   for   development   of   project   during   2010­2011.  These
amounts of POC were further transferred to various accounts apart
from utilization of some of these amounts in acquiring assets and
other  expenses.  Scrutiny of  the  bank  accounts and  their   analysis
revealed that POC amounting Rs.1.06 Crore (approximately moved
from the bank account maintained/  controlled by Pravin Raut to
the bank account of Mr.Sanjay Raut (5) and his wife Mrs.Varsha
Raut as follows,
Sr.No. Flow   of   POC   and   its Period Amount   of   POC Name   of   the
Projection received Beneficiary
1 From the account of Pravin 2009­10 Rs. 55 Lakh Smt. Varsha Raut
Raut as an unsecured loan
2 Prathamesh   Developer   (a 2011 Rs.37.50   Lakhs Smt.   Varsha   Raut
business   entity   of   Pravin over   and   above and   Shri   Sanjay
Raut   with   holding   major the   original Raut
share   of   75%   against amount   with   in
investment   of the   span   of   1
Rs.17,10,000/­   and month
Rs.12,40,000/­   by   Shri
Sanjay   Raut   and   Smt.
Varsha Raut.
3 For investment of Rs.5625/­ Rs.13,94,375/­ Smt. Varsha Raut
only   in   firm   Avani
Infrastructure   by   Smt
Varsha Raut.
Total Rs.1,06,44,375/­
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 72.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

92. Rakeshkumar   Wadhawan(A1),   Sarang   Wadhawan(A2),

Pravin Raut (A3) through M/s GACPL (A4) entered into an agreement
for the redevelopment of the Patra Chawl, Siddharth Nagar, Goregaon
(West), Mumbai. As per the terms of agreement entered into with the
Society   and   MHADA,   they   were   to   rehabilitate   672   tenants   and   to
provide to MHADA constructed built­up area 1,11,476.82 sqmtrs on the
said property. Further they agreed to construct flats for MHADA. In
consideration, the Developer was entitled to develop the free sale
component on  the land  belonging  to  MHADA and to  sell  flats  to
various third party flat purchasers. However, GACPL sold the free
sale component before completing its obligation. The sale proceeds
of   FSI   amounting   Rs.1034   Crore   were   siphoned   off   to   the
Companies   of   HDIL   Group   for   business   purposes   while   the
obligation   with   regard   to   the   tenants   and   MHADA     remained
unfulfilled.     GACPL   through   its   Directors   Rakeshkumar
Wadhawan(A1)   Sarang   Wadhawan(A2)   and   Pravin   Raut   (A3)
knowing   indulged   in   laundering   the   Proceeds   Of   Crime   as   defined
under Sec.3 of the PML Act.  This is the basic case of ED against Sanjay
Raut (A5) and highlighted portion is the gist thereof.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION ALLEGED IN THE
PARAGRAPH 10 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY COMPLAINT.

93. 672 tenants relating to Patra Chawl Project were to receive
rent   till   they   get   the   possession   of   the   flats   constructed   by   the
developers, and accordingly got the same till 2016­17.  But thereafter
developer stopped paying the rents.  Many tenants opted to settle their
dues by selling their tenements as they were not ready to wait.  Rakesh
Kumar   Wadhawan   (A1),   Sarang   Wadhawan   (A2),   Pravin   Raut   (A3),
Sanjay   Raut(A5)  conspired   and   indulged   in   the   offence   of   money
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 73.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

laundering.  On 12.08.2006 the then Union Agriculture Minister had
desired   a   discussion   at   Y.B.   Chavan   Center,   regarding
redevelopment   scheme   for   Siddharth   Nagar,   EWS   Row
Houses/Tenements   at   Goregaon.   Secretary,   Housing   and   Chief
Officer   Board,   participated   the   said   discussion.     Sanjay   Raut(A5)
and Mr. Thakkar were present in the meeting.  Besides that Sanjay
Raut(A5) also participated the Chamber Meeting called by the then
Chief Minister of Maharashtra on this subject, which was held on
03.09.2007.  Thereafter, shareholding pattern and structure of M/s.
GACPL   was  changed  by  exit   of   earlier   shareholders   and   entry of
Pravin   Raut   (A3),   Rakesh   Kumar   Wadhawan   (A1)   and   Sarang
Wadhawan (A2). 

94. Pravin   Raut   (A3)   being   experienced   in   the   field  and

known   to   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   being   his   friend   since   prior   to   2002­03,
became   proxy   and   confidante,   and   further   inducted   in   GACPL   vide
Board Resolution dt.24.09.2007.  GACPL entrusted Pravin Raut (A3)
only with the task to liase with Government Authorities.   He(A3)
was only a signatory for making correspondences with MHADA and
was entrusted with limited task to liase with all Government/Semi­
Government/Statutory   and   Local   Authorities.     He(A3)   used   to
manage Government Authorities,  mostly  MHADA,  to obtain various
benefits by getting favourable approvals, as a result of which FSI
were sold to developers.  He(A3) claimed to be holding 25% shares
of GACPL and was just the face, whereas everything was controlled
by Sanjay Raut(A5) being de­facto shareholder/ owner.  In this way
Sanjay Raut(A5) was operating from behind the veil and controlling
the activities through his proxy Pravin Raut (A3).   In this way, IT
APPEARS   that   Pravin   Raut   (A3)/Sanjay   Raut(A5)   MIGHT   HAVE
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 74.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

received more POC in the manner best known to them.   It is also
revealed that, Sanjay Raut(A5) has acquired many assets during the
period the POC was siphoned off and also cash amount has been
used by him (A5) for acquiring  some of these assets  and also for
meeting   the   various   personal   expenses.     He(A5)   sourced   these   cash
from his proxy Pravin Raut (A3) through GACPL.  Besides the recipient
of   the   amount   of   POC  directly   through   banking   channel,  huge   cash
were received by him(A5) from GACPL(A4) and/or A1 and A2.  It was
utilized for acquisition of assets in Kihim for the proposed Resort project
during that period. The  details of cash utilized in the purchase are as
under,
Sr Name of Sellers Details of the property Registered Cash   given   to
No Value the sellers.
1. Amol Shripad Village   Kihim,   Tal­ 8,00,000/­ 34,00,000
Khale Alibag,   Dist.   Raigad,
Gunta   No.508   &   540,
Plot No.1 & 2.
2. Dilip Village   Kihim,   Tal­ 4,00,000/­ 18,00,000
Madhusudan Alibag,   Dist.   Raigad,
Morjaria Gunta   No.508   &   540,
Plot No.4.
3. Abhay Sursh Village   Kihim,   Tal­ 4,00,000/­ 36,00,000
Malap Alibag,   Dist.   Raigad,
Gunta   No.508   &   540,
Plot No.5 & 6.
4. Girja Shanker Village   Kihim,   Tal­ 4,00,000/­ 24,00,000
Shukla Alibag,   Dist.   Raigad,
Gunta   No.508   &   540,
Plot No.7
5. Sridhar Village   Kihim,   Tal­ 7,00,000/­ 38,00,000
Balkrishna Alibag,   Dist.   Raigad,
Edekar Gunta   No.508   &   540,
Plot No.8.
6. Avinash Shriam Village   Kihim,   Tal­ 7,00,000/­
Deshpande Alibag,   Dist.   Raigad,
Gunta   No.508   &   540,
Plot No.11.
7. Avinash Shriam Village   Kihim,   Tal­ 10,00,000/­
Deshpande Alibag,   Dist.   Raigad,
Gunta   No.508   &   540,
Plot No.12.
30,00,000
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 75.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

8. Bharat Vijay Village   Kihim,   Tal­ 5,00,000/­ 24,00,000

Ushirkar Alibag,   Dist.   Raigad,
Gunta   No.508   &   540,
Plot No.13.
2,04,00,000

95. Mr. Dhananjay Lendhe claimed that he received Rs.5 Lakh
from Sanjay Raut and on depositing it in the bank he issued cheque of
Rs.5   Lakh   to   Mrs.   Varsha   Raut.     Sanjay   Raut(A5)   claimed   that,   he
received a loan of Rs.12,41,100/­ from Kantibhai, Dadar, but no such
person was identified.  Bank Account revealed that the subject amount
was received from the account of G'Diam Jewells, Opera House, when
no such company in the name of G'Diam Jewells, is operated on the
given   address.     This   revealed   that,   it   was   an   accommodation   entry
against   cash.   Unidentified   person   Kantibhai   routed   money
Rs.12,41,100/­   of   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   which   was   utilized   for   acquiring
assets.  In this way, it was revealed that, Sanjay Raut(A5) has diverted
the POC in the following manner, 
i. Total cash of Rs.2,04,00,000/­ was infused in acquisition of 10
parcel of land at Kihim during 2010­2­12,
ii. Rs.55 Lakhs routed through the Bank account of wife of accused
No.3   Pravin   Raut   utilised   acquisition   of   flat   at   Garden  Court,
Dadar East, Mumbai.
iii. Rs.37.50 Lakhs routed through the Bank account of the firm of
A­3 i.e. Prathmesh Developer utilised for acquisition of flat at
Garden Court.
iv. Rs.13,94,375/­   routed   through   Avni   Infrastructure   received   in
the bank account his wife Varsha Ratu.
v. Rs.5,00,000/­ and Rs.12,41,100/­ were routed through the bank
account   of   Dhananjay   Lendhe   and   G'Diam   Jewel   reportedly
belongs to “Kanti Bhai Dadar” which is yet to be identified.  
 
Scope   of   initial   project   of   Patra   Chawl   for   constructing
rehab for tenants in 13.18 Acres was extended to 47 Acres after entry of
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 76.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Sanjay Raut(A5), hence he played crucial role in granting the same.  He
introduced Pravin Raut(A3) as his front in GACPL at 25% share without
investment.    Pravin   Raut  (A3),   old   acquaintance  of  Sanjay  Raut(A5)
was spending his money on  Air­ticket, domestic and foreign visits of
Sanjay Raut and his family.  He has provided huge amount in cheque
to Sanjay Raut(A5) in the garb of return of investment etc.  He has also
provided  huge   unaccounted   cash  to  Sanjay   Raut(A5),   which   was
siphoned   off   from   the   Patra   Chawl   Project.     He(A5)   mislead
investigation regarding infusion of cash in the bank accounts of his wife
and also payment of POC in cash for purchase of Alibaug land in the
name of his wife and dummy person.   He(A5) has threatened various
witnesses from whom he had purchased land in Alibaug.  He has abused
Swapna Patkar with dire consequences, trying to take back the Benami
land purchased in her name.   He has taken POC in cash and used for
personal purposes and purchase of properties.  In this way he was the
real person behind the sale deal who pressurized sellers to part with
land and also paid them cash.    In this background ED contended that,
Sanjay  Raut(A5)   has  received  POC  to  the  extent   of   Rs.3,27,85,475/­
from   GACPL.    Apart   from  this  he(A5)  has  also  received  huge  cash
through Pravin Raut(A3) and/or Rakesh(A1), Sarang(A2).

96. This is the case pleaded in the Supplementary Complaint in
addition to the case alleged in the Main Complaint against Sanjay Raut.
The   same   is   reproduced   as   mentioned   at   page   50   to   55   of   the
Supplementary Complaint.  
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 77.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

97.   GROUNDS FOR CLAIMING BAIL.
a. The applicant  (A5) is nowhere connected  to   M/s  GACPL  or HDIL or
Patra Chawl Project in any manner.
b. He is a Member of Parliament (Rajyasabha) for more than 18 years and
Senior Leader of the Shivsena Party and also holds a Diplomatic Pass­
Port. 
c. He is the Executive Editor of Newspaper SAMANA which is mouth piece
of the Shivsena Party and as such is a well respected person having deep
roots in the Society. 
d. The present case is perfect example of abuse of powers and Political
Vendetta and he is victimized to forcibly crush the opposition faced by
the ruling party.
e. Existence of a tripartite agreement dt.10.04.2008 is an admitted fact
whereby M/s GACPL was authorized to redevelop the 47 Acres of land
belonging to MHADA being CTS No.260,260/1 to 100,261 to 104, 264,
264/1   to   296,   265/1   to   40,   267,267/17   to   24,268(part),   268/45   to
86,347,347/1 to 16,363,36/1 to 56 and bearing CTS No.18A/1, 18A/2,
22A   to   22A/6,   22A/7A,   22A/7B,   22/A/8A,   22A/8B,
22A/9,22A/10,22A/11A, 22/11B,22A/12, 22A/15, CTS No.22, 22/1 to
95,   22,23/1   to   32,   24,24/1   to   48   and   27   (part)   at   Viilage   Pahadi,
Goregaon. 
f.  It is an admitted fact that Mr. Pravin Raut (A3) on  09.06.2011  had
applied to MHADA seeking permission to sell the free sale component to
raise funds for completing the said project. 
g. It is also an admitted fact that  MHADA vide its Order dt.26.07.2011
had permitted M/s GACPL to sell the free sale component to raise funds
to complete the project. 
h. Hence, money received by GACPL from the sale component is under the
permission of MHADA and the same was given for  raising funds  for
completing the project. 
i If   contention   of   ED   is   believed   that   money   received   by   GACPL   was
siphoned of and used for purposes other than completing the project,
then certainly such money is not POC and the same is not derived by
committing a Predicate  Offence or any activity relating to it. 
j. Basically  no   Predicate  Offence  is  made  out     as  any   rights,   liabilities,
performances, non­performances violation of terms of agreement would
be   Civil   in   nature   and   warrant   Civil   Remedies   before   appropriate
Forum.
k.  The applicant (A5) is charged of receiving proceeds of Crime to the tune
of Rs.1,06,44,375/­ on 3 major allegations against him being 
(i)  Receiving of Rs.55 Lakh from the account of Mrs.Madhuri  
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 78.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

       Pravin Raut which is allegedly is POC.
(ii)  An amount of Rs.37,50,000/­ received by the applicant (A5)        
       from Prathamesh Developers.
(iii) An amount of Rs.13,94,375/­ allegedly received by the the 
       Applicant from Avani Infrastructure.
l.  The Applicant (A5) had taken a personal loan of Rs.55 Lakh from Mrs.
Madhuri Pravin Raut and the same had been shown in the Rajya Sabha
Affidavit of the Applicant (A5) and the same was repaid by him from
legal and valid source of funds. 
m. Rs.37,50,000/­ received by Applicant (A5) are returned of investment
which he (A5) had invested in the project of Prathamesh Developers
with   a   promise   of   specific   profit.   But   the   project   gone   in   dispute
between land owner and the tenant hence, the Applicant (A5) decided
to withdraw his investment and he was given a limited profit against his
investment. 
n. Amount of Rs.13,94,375/­ allegedly received by him (A5) from Avani
Infrastructure in fact  was never received by him and the same is only a
booked profit in the books of the Company and never received by the
Applicant and his family. 
o. Reply filed by the EOW, Mumbai to the Bail Application of Pravin Raut
(A3) (after his arrest on 13.02.2020), is with   contention that a third
party being “Grat Thonrton” conducted forensic audit of the accounts of
the Company  and  came to a conclusion that Pravin Raut (A3) had not
signed any agreement with the 9 Developers to whom the said free sale
component   was   sold   and   also   that   from   the   amount   allegedly
misappropriated   out   of   the   redevelopment   work,   no   amount   is
deposited in the account of Mr. Pravin Raut (A3). All this demonstrates
that alleged misappropriated funds had never received in the account of
Pravin Raut (A3),hence  the  question of  Applicant  (A5)  receiving   any
POC from Pravin Raut (A3) does not arise at all and the entire case
against   the   Applicant(A5)   becomes   baseless,   illegal   and   devoid   of
merits. 
p. Order dt.21.03.2020 passed by the Sessions Court gives a fatal blow to
the entire case against the Applicant(A5).
q. If  money received by Pravin Raut (A3) is not tainted  money, then no
Predicate   Offence   is   prima­facie   made   out   against   the   present
Applicant(A5).  Hence even a single day of custody of the Applicant(A5)
would be illegal. 
r.  There are two different ECIRs registered against Pravin Raut (A3) being
ECIR   MBZO­I/9/2019   and   ECIR   MBZO­I/80/2021   by   the   same
Investigating Agency i.e. ED and it is the same Investigating Agency, the
ED who in the ECIR MBZO­I/09/2019 claims that Rs.112 Crore received
by Pravin Raut (A3) is POC derived from PMC Bank fraud which is a
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 79.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

totally different case and no where connected to the present case. In the
said case properties of Pravin Raut (A3) had been already attached. 
s. On the other hand the same Investigating Agency , the ED in the present
case claims that the same Rs.112 Crore as received by Pravin Raut (A3)
is POC derived from the sale of FSI in the Patra Chawl Project, which
itself speaks volumes. 
t. The   Applicant   (A5)  is   a   victim   of   the  Political   change  of   power   and
thereby abuse of criminal machinery at the hands of ruling party. There
is no likelihood of his absconding. 
u. The Applicant(A5) is heart patient and has undergone Angioplasty twice
and there are 6 stents in his heart. He is under strict diet, medication
and observation of the doctor. He is ready to abide conditions imposed
by the Court and undertakes to remain present whenever called. 

These   are   the   grounds   the   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   claimed   for

bail.

98. This   Bail   Application   was   filed   when   the   Supplementary

Prosecution Complaint against him(A5) was awaiting. Ld. Sr. Counsel
Mr.   Ashok   Mundergi   after   receiving   Supplementary   Prosecution
Complaint, opted not to take additional grounds but answer and rebut
various   new   allegations   made   in   the   Supplementary   PC   by   way   of
argument,   written   submission   relating   to   argument   (as   per   Purshis
Exh.16)   and   various   documents.     Ld.   A.S.G.   Mr.   Anil   Singh   raised
objection that Accused No.5 has not taken any additional grounds after
filing of Supplementary Complaint, hence all allegations made in the
Supplementary   Complaint   have   gone   unchallenged   as   per   law   of
pleadings, which is applicable to law of bail. 

99. I carefully examined this argument of Ld. A.S.G. Mr. Anil
Singh.   Basically   the   Applicant(A5)   in   his   Purshish   (Exh.16)   clearly
informed the ED and the Court that he (A5) would opt to argue and file
written   submissions   for   allegations   made   in   the   Supplementary
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 80.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Complaint. Accordingly, Ld. Sr.Counsel Mr. Mundergi argued each and
every   point   alleged   in   the   Supplementary   Complaint   and   also   filed
written  submissions   (Exh.19).    Thereafter,  Ld.   A.S.G.   Mr.   Anil   Singh
thoroughly argued for two long sessions on various points contended in
the written submissions(Exh.19).   Not only this but also ED filed their
detailed rejoinder written submissions (Exh.20) on 02.11.2022 which
runs into 34 pages. In this way, ED has availed an opportunity to rebut
or refute whatever argued by Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Ashok Mundergi and
Mr. Vikrant Sabne. Basically the question involved in law relating to the
bail relates to the right to liberty of a person which is a fundamental
right of everyone.  If a person like Accused No.5 avails particular mode
of   presenting   his   case,   argument   and   ED   has   orally   as   well   as   by
written submissions (Exh.20) rejoined, rebutted and refuted it, there is
absolutely   no  substance   in   raising   such   technical   dispute   particularly
when the right to liberty of an arrested person is on stake. Therefore,
such technicalities and technical objection raised by ED cannot debar
the   accused   to   argue   the   merits   of   the   allegations   made   in   the
Supplementary Complaint for the decision of his bail application.  

100. I   have   already   made   exhaustive   discussion   in   the   above

order in respect of Bail Application of Pravin Raut(A3).  After examining
materials   on   record   prima­facie   from   the   point   of   the   qualifications
provided under Sec.45(1)(i)(ii) of the PML Act, I arrived at following
main conclusions;

A. Considering   the   long   battle   of   Civil   litigation,   there   is

complete   absence   of   fraudulent   or   dishonest   intention   of
Pravin Raut(A3) in cheating MHADA and the Society of 672
occupants.  It is also held that the facts and circumstances of
transaction   of   the   contemporary   period   (2007­2011)
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 81.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

nowhere  indicate   that   Pravin   Raut(A3)   undertook   the   said

task   to   generate   POC   by   indulging   an   activity   relating   to
Scheduled Offences i.e. Sec.420,120B IPC.  
B. In the background of “A” above, I further prima­facie arrived
at conclusion that there is absolutely  no Predicate Offence
involved in this case as alleged in the FIR.  Hence, question
of any criminal activity relating to it for generating POC does
not arise.  
C. It   is   further   held   that   Accused   No.3   is   prima­facie   neither
generator   of   POC   Rs.95   Cr./Rs.100   Cr./Rs.112   Cr.   nor
recipient   thereof   by   way   of   criminal   activity   relating   to
Scheduled Offence.  
D. It is also prima­facie held how ED itself contended in ECIR
2019 that Accused No.3 received Rs.95 Crore through HDIL
out of outstanding illegal loan of Rs.6117.93 Crore raised by
Rakesh (A1) and Sarang (A2) from PMC Bank.  In this way, it
is prima­facie held that accused No.3 is neither generator of
Rs.95   Crore   POC   nor   recipient   thereof   and   the   self­
contradictory   rather   self­destructive   stand   taken   by   ED   as
such, itself prima­facie establishes as such.  

101. Right   from   the   beginning   (in   Main   PC)   till   the
Supplementary Complaint against Accused No.5, ED's contention is that
accused No.3 is generator, recipient of Rs.95 Cr. / Rs.100 Cr. / Rs.112
Cr.     From   this   amount,   an   amount  Rs.1,06,44,375   (Main   PC)   and
Rs.3,27,85,475   (as   per   Supplementary   Complaint).    In   this   way
Accused No.5 became recipient of the above mentioned amounts with
'Dramatis   Personae'    whereby   Pravin   Raut(A3)   who   was   basically
alleged   as   one   of   the   main   accused   became   front­man   of   Sanjay
Raut(A5), whereas Sanjay Raut(A5) became one of the accused who did
all what that has alleged in the Supplementary Complaint by keeping
himself behind the curtain.  

102. In the aforesaid background and for the detailed reasons in
respect of Bail Application (Exh.8) of Pravin Raut (A3) basically Sanjay
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 82.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Raut(A5) is entitled to get bail without a word of further discussion.  It
is   because   there   are   no   POC   nor   Pravin   Raut(A3)   had   any   role   in
generating POC and laundering the same. Nor he(A3) had indulged into
any criminal activity relating to Scheduled Offence in order to attract
Ss.420, 120B IPC (Predicate Offences) r.w. Ss.2(1)(u) and 3 of the PML
Act.     On   this   count   itself   it   is   prima­facie   glaringly   evident   that   the
Applicant(A5)   was   neither   arrested   for   any   activity   relating   to
Scheduled   Offence   nor   involved   in   any   process   of   generating   POC,
placing, layering and integration thereof.   All the reasons exhaustively
discussed in the bail order of Pravin Raut (A3) (supra) are applicable to
the case of Sanjay Raut(A5). Failure of ED to prima­facie bring the case
of Sanjay Raut(A5) under the stringent twin conditions, automatically
benefits his (A5) case.  In this way, I am of the firm opinion that, Sanjay
Raut(A5) is entitled to be released on various contentions raised in the
Main PC against Pravin Raut(A3).  One of them is that, Rs.95 Cr. is POC
generated by Rakesh (A1), Sarang(A2) and their HDIL by way of illegal
loan from PMC Bank.  

103. Supplementary   Complaint   came   with   specific   allegations

that “Not Pravin Raut(A3), but Sanjay Raut(A5) is the main person
behind this project and Pravin Raut (A3) was his front man”.   It is
Sanjay Raut(A5) behind the curtain, who was doing everything and
received  Rs.1,06,44,375   (Main   PC)   and     Rs.3,27,85,475   (as   per
Supplementary Complaint) POC.   Not only this but, he(A5) is now
made   wholly   responsible   in   generating   POC   and   laundering   the
same by transposing Pravin Raut (A3) as a secondary person.   Gist
of allegations in Supplementary Complaint is as follows, 
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 83.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

a. Pravin   Raut(A3)   received   Rs.112   Cr.   through   A1,A2   and   their

HDIL, in his bank account.   Out of these, 1.06 Cr. was moved
from  Pravin  Raut's   (A3)  bank  account   to   the  bank   account   of
Sanjay Raut(A5).  
b. On  14.08.2006  Secretary,  Housing Department,  prepared   a
Note contending that, the then Union Agricultural Minister
had   desired   discussion   about   redevelopment   of   Siddharth
Nagar   Project.     Sanjay   Raut(A5)   participated   the   said
meeting and indicated that redevelopment of the Siddharth
Nagar Project as per G.R. of 1988 may not be viable.  

c. Thereafter, Development Agreement dt.18.08.2006 was executed
between the Society and GACPL for 13.18 Acres of land for 672
tenants.  
d. Some time in September, 2007 a meeting was called upon by
the then Chief Minister to know the financial implications of
the Siddharth Nagar Project as per the current and proposed
Development Control Regulations.  In the meeting Mr.Sanjay
Raut(A5),   the   Office   bearers   of   the   Society   and   MHADA
Officers were present.   No minutes  were prepared for  this
meeting.  
e. GACPL, thereafter, changed shareholding pattern and structure
by exit of earlier shareholder and entry of Accused No.1 to 3.  
f. The scope of initial project for the tenants in 13.18 Acres was
enlarged  to  47  Acres after the entry of Sanjay Raut(A5), who
played role in granting the Siddharth  Nagar Project to GACPL
and further introduced Pravin Raut (A3) as his front in GACPL at
25% shares.   In this way, Pravin Raut (A3) became proxy and
confidante of Sanjay Raut(A5).  
g. Pravin   Raut   (A3)   was   a   close   friend   of   Sanjay   Raut(A5),
authorized   to   correspond   with   MHADA   and   other   local
authorities.  He(A3) obtained favourable approvals from MHADA
and was able to sell FSI to developers due to his proximity with
Sanjay Raut(A5).  
h. Cash   worth   Rs.13.06   Cr.   was   withdrawn   from   the   account   of
GACPL(A4)   by   Rakesh   Kumar   Wadhawan   (A1)   and   Sarang
Wadhawan (A2).  Sanjay Raut(A5) has been connected with the
purported POC by stating as, “Sanjay Raut has acquired  many
assets during the period the poc was siphoned off and also cash
amount   has   been   used   by   Sanjay   Raut   for   acquiring  some   of
these assets and also for meeting various personal expenses”
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 84.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

  In this way in Supplementary Complaint it is alleged that,
Accused   No.1   to   3   and   5   conspired   and   indulged   in   the   offence   of
money laundering. 

104. I   carefully   examined   these   allegations   made   in   the

Supplementary Complaint and argument of Ld. A.S.G. Mr. Anil Singh,
based  on the  say  to  the  bail   application  as well  as  rejoinders to  the
written   submissions   of   Sanjay   Raut(A5).     All   this   prima­facie
demonstrates that statement of Mr. Chandan Kelekar is the sole basis on
which Sanjay Raut(A5) is connected and fastened to Siddharth Nagar
Project.     It   is   his   bald   and   bare   words   regarding   two   meetings
highlighted   and   referred   above,   wherein   the   then   Union   Agriculture
Minister   and   the   Chief   Minister   of   Maharashtra   took   alleged   two
meetings.   No evidence is required to hold that the Union Agriculture
Minister   and   the   Chief   Minister   of   Maharashtra   are   very   high
dignitaries holding Constitutional posts, who possess exceptional top­
level   protocols.     Allegations   made   in   the   Supplementary   Complaint
indicate that these two high dignitaries had allegedly took two meetings
in the presence of Sanjay Raut(A5) and high level Government Officials.
The allegations in the Supplementary Complaint further indicate that a
policy  decision   in   respect  of  Patra  Chawl  Project  was  taken   in   those
meetings.  When such high dignitaries took any such decision, it is very
astonishing   that   no   minutes   of   any   of   such   two   meetings   had   been
recorded.  In fact minutes of such high level official meetings are bound
to   be   recorded   as   per   the   Protocol.     Even   some   record   is   always
maintained in respect of such meetings for the official purpose.  Because
those two meetings were not held by politicians but were held by the
then Union Agriculture Minister and Chief Minister of Maharashtra.  
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 85.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

105. Careful examination of whole documents and statements it
is   prima­facie   evident   that,   except  Chandan   Kelekar,   who   is   not   any
Government   Official,   but   allegedly   participated   those   meetings   states
about the same with minute details out of his photographic memory.
ED   has   not   recorded   statements   of   the   MHADA   and   Government
Officers present in the said meeting viz. T. Chandrashekhar (V.P.), Chief
Officer, Legal Adviser, Chief Engineer, Chief Architect.  Even no official
record which is bound to be preserved  by the Office of the Chief
Minister, regarding the suggestions given by Mr. Vilasrao Deshmukh,
the   then   Chief   Minister,   in   the   said   meeting   as   stated   by   Chandan
Kelekar in answer to question No.3 of his statement dt.25.08.2022.  As
noted above, no statement of Government/MHADA Officers allegedly
present in the said meeting has been recorded by ED, but ED recorded
the statement of Mr.Chandan Kelekar only, for the reasons best known
to   them,   and,   the   same   prima­facie   speaks   volumes.     Except   this
contention   and   the   statement   of   Mr.   Chandan   Kelekar,   there   is
absolutely no material, at least to prima­facie support existence of the
alleged two meetings.  

106. At this prima­facie stage appreciation of evidentiary value
and   giving   finding   of   acquittal   or   conviction   is   not   permissible,   but
while   assessing   the   case   for   bail,   certainly   we   cannot   forget   the
character   and   quality   of   the   material   required   and   prescribed   under
Sec.45(1)(i)(ii) of the PML Act.  I strongly feel that, unless the quality
and   character   of   material   is   assessed,   parameters   for   assessment   of
applicability   of   twin   conditions,   questions   relating   to   prima­facie
satisfaction – dissatisfaction of the twin conditions under Sec.45(1)(i)
(ii) of the PML Act, cannot be resolved.  Ratio of recent authority of the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 86.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Vs. Stae of Maharashtra (Bail Application No.1021 of 2022, decided
on   04.11.2022),  wherein  Vijay   Madanlal   Choudhary   and   others   Vs.
Union of India and others, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4634
of 2014, decided on 27.07.2022] is also relied upon, lays down that,
character and quality of statements can certainly be seen at the stage of
bail.  

107. Apart   from   this,   I   am   of   the   firm   opinion   that,   simply

provision   under   Sec.50(2)   and   (3)   of   the   PML   Act   gives   certain
importance and weightage to the statements, does not mean that, such
statements are straight way binding on the Court, whatever its quality
may be.   And, the Court is debarred to look into its quality.   On the
contrary Condition (ii) of Sec.45(1) of the PML Act clearly prescribes
prima­facie scanning of quality of materials.   So, if the Court accepts
such   statements   as   it   is,   irrespective   of   quality   of   its   material   and
character, there will be no scope for application of judicial mind.   In
that situation it will lead to hazardous consequences that, not the Court
but altogether strange person like Mr. Chandan Kelekar, authors of such
statements will take the fate of the case in their hands, which is not the
true purport of Sec.45(1)(i)(ii) of the PML Act.  Therefore, Mr.Chandan
Kelekar's   statement   which   allegedly   assumes   importance,   is   the   only
statement regarding alleged two meetings of the then Union Agriculture
Minister   and   the   then   Chief   Minister,   therefore   requires   cautious
consideration and examination.  

108. The date 25.08.2022 when Mr. Chandan Kelekar's second
statement was recorded, has great significance.   It is material to note
that   his   second   statement   was   recorded   when   Main   Prosecution
Complaint was already filed and Pravin Raut (A3) had already filed his
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 87.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

bail   application   (Exh.8)   way   back   on   05.05.2022   and   also   had

completely   disclosed   his   defence,   making   it   known   to   everyone
including   ED.     Hence,   the  date  25.08.2022  of   his   second   statement
carries great significance.  I have already noted how by Supplementary
Complaint, ED astonishingly made 'Dramatis Personae' transposing the
roles attributed to Pravin Raut (A3) and Sanjay Raut(A5) making this
applicant(A5) as a main culprit. The date of statement of Mr. Chandan
Kelekar has to be viewed with this background.  It has to be noted that
his  first statement  was recorded on  17.09.2021,  wherein he had not
stated a word about such two meetings with the then Union Agriculture
Minister   and   the   then   Chief   Minister   late   Mr.   Vilasrao   Deshmukh,
though it was allegedly within his knowledge.  But for the first time by
way of 'Dramatis Personae' on 25.08.2022 he states about the same as
follows,
“I do not remember  the exact date, but Shri Nippun Thakkar has
exited from this project after approval of the project around 2000....”
“...  I do not know the reasons  for Shri Nippun Thakkar's exit from
the   project  but   as   told   by  Shri   Mansukhbhai   Sureja,   it   was   pre­
decided that after the approval of the project.  Shri Nippun Thakkar
will exit from this project.  I state that HDIL and Pravin Raut entered
the project together in the year 2006....”
“Firstly, in around September 2007 a meeting was called upon by the
then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh
to know the financial implications of the project as per the current as
well as the future proposed Development Control Regulations.  In this
meeting Shri Sanjay Raut, the office bearer of Patra Chawl viz Shri
Rajaran   Shinde,   Shri   P.Y.   Shinde,   Coordinator,   Shri   Gavas,  the
MHADA Officers viz T. Chandrashekhar (V.P.), Chief Officer, Legal
Adviser,   Chief   Engineer,   Chief   Architect  were   present.   On   being
asked   I   state,   I   was   also   present   in   the   meeting   being   the   project
Architect.   After   understanding   the   financial   implications   in   this
Project, Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh suggested that the proposal should
be first concluded in the MHADA Authority meeting and thereafter to
be forwarded to the Govt. for its approval.   On being asked if any
minutes were prepared for the meeting I state that no minutes
were   prepared  only   directions   were   given   to   get   the   proposal
sanctioned from the authority.”
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 88.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

109. His   (Chandan   Kelekar's)   above   statement     dt.25.08.2022

prima­facie indicates that  he has a photographic memory in respect
of two meetings when he is unable to state other things for want of
remembrance.    Basically   his   statement   has   no   connection   with   the
Predicate Offence.   Even if such bald and bare words of Mr. Chandan
Kelekar without support of any quality official materials, are accepted to
be  true  in   the   guise   of   Sec.24   of   the   PML   Act,  certainly   there   is  no
presumption   under   any   law   that   criminal   conspiracy   to   cheat   and
misappropriate, was hatched in those two meetings with the then Union
Agriculture Minister and the then Chief Minister.  It will be far fetched
to hold as such.  Even if his words in the statement dt.25.08.2022  are
straight way accepted as true, without application of judicial mind, T.
Chandrashekhar,   the   then   V.P.   and   high   level   MHADA   Officers,
Government Officials will also have to be considered as a part of the
said criminal conspiracy as per Sec.120B IPC. 

110. Careful perusal of the Main and Supplementary Complaints
prima­facie indicates that, ED has allegations against MHADA, yet the
following questions still remain unanswered : 
i. Why all the Government and MHADA Officials participated
the said two meetings are not accused herein?

ii. Why   only   Pravin   Raut   (A3)   and   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   were
arrested   and   main   money­launderers   Rakesh   Wadhawan
(A1) and Sarang Wadhawan (A2) who had admitted their
misdeeds   by   making   sworn   statements   in   the   Affidavit
before   the   Hon'ble   High   Court,   were   not   even   arrested,
when   the   ED   had   arrested   them   in   almost   every   other
previous crimes?
iii. How it can be justified at law?
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 89.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

111. When   prima­facie   this   truth   is   glaring,   how   can   it   be

hushed up? Particularly when the Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly
laid down as “Truth is the guiding star.  Criminal Trial is a voyage
for   discovery   of   truth.     Truth   alone   triumphs   and   Court   should
always make each and every endeavour to discover truth”.   This is
in respect of statement of Mr. Chandan Kelekar, which is the only basis
for arraigning Sanjay Raut(A5) by way of Supplementary Complaint.  

112. Trail of money is shown in the Main and Supplementary
Complaints to show that, money has been transferred from the bank
account of Pravin Raut (A3) in the bank account of Mr. Varsha Sanjay
Raut   and   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   initially  Rs.1,06,44,375   (Main   PC)   and
subsequently   Rs.3,27,85,475   (as   per   Supplementary   Complaint)
which is POC.  According to ED this amount is out of Rs.95 Cr./ Rs.100
Cr. / Rs.112 Cr. allegedly generated by Pravin Raut (A3) and thereafter,
further laundered.   I have already made an exhaustive discussion and
noted the miserable failure of the ED to prima­facie establish the said
amounts   being   POC.     I   have   also   noted   how,   the   ED   has   made
approbate and reprobate in respect of Rs.95 Cr. by saying on one hand
having generated from selling FSI free sale component and on another
hand   saying   the   same   having   received   from   illegal   loan   obtained   by
Wadhawans from the PMC.  This failure itself leaves nothing to prima­
facie prove by Sanjay Raut(A5).   

113. Various amounts are quoted by ED in the Supplementary
Complaint and written submissions in rejoinder.  But it is necessary to
examine   whether   it   has   any   nexus   with   the   POC   as   defined   under
Sec.2(1)(u) r.w. Sec.3 of the PML Act.  I have already noted above how
is the statement of Mr.Chandan Kelekar and the quality thereof.  Except
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 90.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

this, regarding various other entries of money flow claimed by the ED is
also   based   on   the   statements   of   various   other   witnesses   and   further
contention of ED how the same was unaccounted but found with Sanjay
Raut(A5).   It is also necessary to examine  what is there  to show all
these properties are derived from the POC and POC was generated by
criminal activity relating to Scheduled Offence.  Even if some amounts
are given/transferred by Pravin Raut (A3) to Sanjay Raut(A5) straight
way no inference can be drawn that those were POC generated from
certain   act/criminal   activities   done   by   him   in   respect   of   Predicate
Offence.  It is material to note that, the order dt.21.03.2020 passed by
the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge (C.R.No.37), Mumbai in Bail Application
No.831 of 2020 in respect of Predicate Offence allegedly committed by
Pravin Raut (A3), the Investigating Officer had made a statement across
the bar that, he and prosecution would be filing report under Sec.169
Cr.P.C against Pravin Raut (A3) and this aspect cannot be ignored.  

114. It is an admitted fact that, once upon a time Pravin Raut
(A3),   his   wife,   Sanjay   Raut(A5),   his   wife,   Swapna   Patkar   and   her
husband   Mr.   Sujit   Patkar,   were   very   close   family   friends.     Except
statements recorded under Sec.50(2) and (3) of the PML Act, there is
nothing   which   remotely   suggests   that   the   Applicant(A5)   was
instrumental   in   all   what   has   been   alleged   in   the   Supplementary
Complaint.     Old   acquaintance   between  Pravin   Raut   (A3)   and   Sanjay
Raut(A5) as well as their family relations is not much disputed fact.
Mere giving of money by Pravin Raut (A3) to Sanjay Raut(A5) would
not amount sharing of POC, when the main component of the POC is
absolutely absent, as held in the Bail Application of Pravin Raut (A3).  
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 91.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

115. Much capital is made by the ED of five statements of Ms.
Swapna Patkar recorded under Sec.50 of the PML Act.  In the statement
dt.09.12.2020 she states that she is Consultant Physiologist with Lilavati
Hospital and has her own Clinic  in  her residence at Kalina.   She also
does Corporate Training and has been teaching in Mumbai University in
the field of Psychology.   However, Ld. Adv. Mr. Vikrant  Sabne in his
reply to the argument of Ld. A.S.G., submitted across the bar and even
it is specifically mentioned in the written submissions of Accused No.5
that basically all such activities undertaken by Ms. Swapna Patkar are
based   on   a   forged   and   fabricated   Doctor's   degree   in   the   field   of
Psychology   and   thereby  she   had  cheated   the   Lilavati   Hospital   and
Mumbai University. FIR was registered against her for the same and she
was lodged in Central Jail for a long time.  

116. In the same statements Ms. Swapna Patkar further claims
that,   she   had   paid   Rs.50   Lakh   to   Sanjay   Raut(A5),   regarding   the
registered cost of the plot at Alibaug.  In her statement dt.01.09.2021
she specifically states that,  she is not aware of the market value of
the property,  but it may be  around Rs.10 Crore.   She further states
that she had never met the land owner and all negotiations were done
by Mr. Sujit Patkar and Sanjay Raut(A5) and that the amount over and
above the registered value was also dealt with  by  them and she  only
went   for   signing   at   Registration   Office.     In   her  third   statement
dt.23.12.2021  she   claims   that  her   husband   Mr.   Sujit   Patkar   was
coordinating all the land owners for cash.  He was handling cash on
behalf of Sanjay Raut(A5).   He was the person who was collecting
cash and handing over the same to the land owners.  She had witnessed
too  many of these discussions between Sujit Patkar and land owners.
On   the   contrary   in   answer   to  Question   No.3   (page   180   Vol.II),   she
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 92.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

states that  as regard the source of money of Sujit Patkar, only he
can explain, which is deviating from her earlier statement wherein she
states that Sujit Patkar was handling cash on behalf of Sanjay Raut(A5).
Page 180 Vol.II in  answer  to  Question  No.5 she  states that, she  had
never met the land owners, but in another statement she states that she
met one land owner  named  Shridhar  Edekar  and he  was a  very old
person.   Further she clearly states that all negotiations were made by
Sujit   Patkar   and   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   and   she   simply   had   gone   for
registration,   which   prima­facie   indicates   that   she   has   no   actual
knowledge of the real circumstances of transaction.  

117. ED's case is that, monies received by Sanjay Raut(A5)  and
his wife Varsha Raut were invested in purchasing various plots/lands at
Kihim, Alibaug. For that Sanjay Raut(A5) allegedly threatened the said
land owners and compelled them to sell their lands/plots to him and
Sujit   Patkar.   Their   contention   as  such  is   based  on   the   statements   of
witnesses including this witness Ms. Swapna Patkar.   She on page 184
(Vol.II) clearly states that when she met Mr. Shridhar Edekar he was a
very old person and he informed her that, “I came to know later that he
has been threatened to sell his land.   Therefore, prima­facie it is clear
that it is not her first hand knowledge of the said fact, but the same is
based on the hearsay knowledge of someone else.  I am constrained to
note that, Ld. A.S.G. Mr. Anil Singh while arguing the case vehemently
referred word  “Whosoever”  in  Sec.3  of  the  PML  Act and  contended
how the case of Sanjay Raut(A5) falls under the said caption having
dealt with POC.   If the same parameter is applied to the case of Ms.
Swapna   Patkar,   she   being   recipient   of   alleged   POC   and   purchased
land/plot   for   herself   and   her   husband   at   the   instance   of   Sanjay
Raut(A5),   would   be   equally   liable   under   Sec.3   of   the   PML   Act.
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 93.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Astonishingly regarding her also, the ED appears to have availed pick
and choose strategy for the reasons best known to them.  Prima­facie it
is evident that ED had done the  same with her which they did with
Rakesh(A1) and Sarang(A2) and allowed Ms. Swapna Patkar to be scot­
free, for the reasons best known to the ED.  

118. On page 188 (Vol.II) Ms. Swapna Patkar again specifically
states that, she and Mrs. Varsha Raut (wife of A5), came into picture
only   at   the   time   of   registration.     All   this   prima­facie   indicates   that
whatever she states about various facts and circumstances of transaction
alleged   against   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   is   not   her   as   per   her   firsthand
knowledge.   On page 192 (Vol.II) of her statement dt.23.08.2022 she
states that,  she has not interacted directly with any seller and had
not   met   any   of   the   sellers   before   or   after   registration   of   the
property and have only seen them at the time of registration and
she had not given any cash to any of the sellers nor came in contact
with them.  On page 193 (Vol.II) she clearly states that she has no role
to pay in the Resort at any stage of planning and execution.  In this way
all five statements of Ms. Swapna Patkar prima­facie indicate that her
role was only to visit the office of registration and sign the execution of
documents only.  It is her own contention that, except this, she has no
knowledge of anything, yet she states that whatever amount received by
Sanjay   Raut(A5)   was   from   Patra   Chawl   project   and   her   husband
received   the   same   from   him(A5)   and   thereafter   the   properties   were
purchased.  All this speaks volumes about her conduct and ED's reliance
on her statements.   Therefore, quality of material with which she has
stated   as   such,   is   an   important   consideration   at   the   stage   of   bail
application.    All  this  prima­facie   raises  question  about  quality  of  her
statement, particularly at page No.177, 178, questions 8,9,11, page 179
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 94.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

questions No.1 and 2, page 180 questions No.3,5 and answers thereof,
question No.8, page 182 and 183 clearly indicates that few days ago
what she said and what she is saying next occasion.  Similarly page 188
question No.4 indicates contradiction to page 180/183.  

119. Mr. Sujit Patkar is husband of Mr. Swapna Patkar makes
contradictory   statement   with   the   statement   of   his   wife   Ms.Swapna
Patkar that it was Ms. Swapna Patkar, who wanted to start residential
project   at   Alibaug   and   for   the   same   she   had   discussion   with   Sanjay
Raut(A5).     On   page   479  he   specifically   states  that,   he   met  the   land
owners   at   the   time   of   registration   of   the   land,   which   is   against   the
statement   and   contention   of   Ms.   Swapna   Patkar   that,   it   was   her
husband Sujit Patkar who did all the negotiations.   While answering
question  No.11   (page  479)  he  specifically  states that  he  had  not
negotiated with the sellers of the land at Kihim and his wife Ms.
Swapna Patkar has carried out the deals by herself at her office in
Sion, Mumbai.  

120. As   noted   above   Mrs.   Swapna   Patkar,   her   husband   Sujit

Patkar had dealt with other work i.e. meeting land owners etc., but on
page 479 while answering question No.12 Mr. Sujit Patkar states that,
he   was   not   even   present   at   the   time   of   negotiations   with   the   land
owners and further relating to question No.15 states that, he does not
have any information if any payments were given through other means.
In his second statement dt.09.09.2022 at page 490, he again confirmed
that,   it   was   Mrs.   Swapna   Patkar   who   wanted   to   start   the   Resort   at
Kihim   and   after   Mr.   Sanjay   Raut   had   shown   interest,   they   started
looking for plots. On page 492, question No.6 he further states that,
he does not know from where the cash part of the payment to the
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 95.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

land   owner   was  made.     Question   No.8   on   page   No.492  (Vol.II)  he
specifically contended that, he has no information about cash in the
purchase   of   land.     Careful   perusal   of   his   statements   prima­facie
indicates that, same question was framed and put to him number of
times in different manner so as to obtain a specific answer to point that
Sanjay   Raut   (A5)   somewhere   was   involved   in   the   cash   transactions.
Bare reading of all his statements, prima­facie reflects this fact, which
cannot be ignored while assessing the case at prima­facie stage when
the consequences thereof have directly impact on the serious question
of personal liberty of Accused No.5.  

121. Amol Khale is one of the sellers of those plots which were
allegedly   purchased   by   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   with   the   help   of   POC.   His
statement dt.04.02.2022 refers that he had not received cash but entire
payment   was   made   in   cheque.     Whereas,   in   his   another   statement
dt.05.08.2022  he  states  that,  Rs.8   Lakh  he   received  through   cheque
and Rs.34 Lakh in cash.  He clearly states that, his brother Dilip Khale
was paid through cheque.  Whereas, while answering question No.13 on
page 45 he states that, he was restricted to sell the said properties as
per wish of his deceased Cousin  he executed  and he is completely
unaware   about   any   cash   transaction.     Stepping   ahead   while
answering   question   No.9   (Page   54)   he   states   that,   8.83   Gunthas
mentioned is  the   exact land sold  for  which  his  brother  might  have
received Rs.34 Lakh above the cheque amount of Rs.8 Lakh.   Bare
reading thereof prima­facie indicates that, his statement as such is self­
contradictory to his statement dt.04.02.2022.

122. Smt. Shubhangi Patil is stating the facts which are within
the knowledge of her deceased father.  She states (question No.5, page
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 96.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

74) that, Sanjay Raut(A5) had paid the registered amount in cheque
and rest in cash to her father as the consideration of the said 8­9 plots,
but her father was not happy with the said payment.  Though there was
cash   component,  however   she   is   not   aware   about   the   cash
component   which   was   given   by   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   to   her   father.
Answers given by her to question 3 (page 73) are “not aware” and in
similar pattern,   prima­facie indicating that she is not aware of real
facts and circumstances of transaction.

123. Mr. Bharat Ushirkar in his statement dt.04.02.2022 states
about sell proceedings for Rs.6 Lakh and  no cash was ever received.
Whereas   in   the   statement  dt.07.09.2022  he   states  having   received
Rs.24 Lakh in cash and Rs.6 through cheque.  

124. Mr.   Avinash   Deshpande  on  04.02.2022  states   that   he

received Rs.13 Lakh in cash and Rs.17 lakh through cheque.  Whereas
in the statement dt.07.09.2022 he states having received Rs.30 lakh in
cash and Rs.17 through cheques.   Mr. Amit Shukla  in his statement
dt.04.02.2022  states   that   he   did   not   receive   any   payment   in   cash.
Whereas,   in   the   statement   dt.05.08.2022  he   states   having   received
Rs.24 Lakh in cash and Rs.4 Lakh through cheque.  Mr. Dilip Morgaria
in   his   statement  dt.04.02.2022  states   that   he   did   not   receive   cash.
Whereas, in his third statement dt.05.08.2022 states that, he received
Rs.18 Lakh in cash and Rs.4 through cheque.  

125. All these, which are referred above, are the statements of
vendors   who   allegedly   sold   their   plot/lands   at   Kihim,   Dist.   Raigad
which Sanjay Raut(A5) allegedly purchased through the POC.  Quality
of   statements   as   noted   previously,   cannot   be   ignored   when   the   bail
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 97.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

application under PML Act is to be decided in the background of twin
conditions under Sec.45(1) of the PML Act.  Particularly, such quality of
material   which   clearly   indicates   that   all   these   witnesses   have   been
stating the facts which are not within their special knowledge, cannot
be overlooked.   Basically if the case alleged by ED is accepted as it is,
both  Rs.1,06,44,375   (Main   PC)   and     Rs.3,27,85,475   (as   per
Supplementary   Complaint)  were   allegedly   received   by   Sanjay
Raut(A5) which is basically a POC allegedly generated by Pravin Raut
(A3)   by   criminal   activities   of   cheating,   criminal   conspiracy   and
misappropriation as alleged in the FIR. On that count I have clearly held
how   this   aspect   is   not   prima­facie   established   and   how   there   is   no
Predicate Offence as alleged in the FIR No.22/2018 for the facts and
circumstances allegedly taken place during 2007­11.  

126. The second limb of contention of the ED is that Pravin Raut
(A3) received Rs.95 Cr./Rs.100 Cr/ Rs.112 Cr being POC generated by
Wadhawans for HDIL by raising illegal loans from the PMLC bank and
keeping huge thereof outstanding.  This another contention of ED itself
demolishes   their   first   contention  that  Pravin   Raut   (A3)   had   not
generated  any  POC as alleged in the  FIR.   Therefore, prima­facie on
both   counts,   there   is   no   case   to   hold   that,   there   were   any   POC   as
alleged, the same was generated by Pravin Raut (A3) or he obtained the
part of POC (Rs.112 Cr.) from Wadhawans through their illegal bank
loans and subsequently a meager part thereof was received by Sanjay
Raut(A5) having clear knowledge that he  had been dealing with the
POC generated from the criminal activity relating to Scheduled Offence.

127. Basically   there   is   no   POC   nor   any   Scheduled   Offence   in

order to attract provision under Sec.2(1)(u) r.w. Sec.3 of the PML Act.
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 98.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

Apart from this, prima­facie there is absolutely nothing to show that
whatever   received   by   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   is   POC.   Recently   the   Hon'ble
Bombay   High   Court,   in   the   case   of  Ajay   Kumar   Chandraprakash
Baheti  Vs.  Directorate of Enforcement, the Assistant Director, Sub­
Zonal Office, (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1451)  while dealing with the
bail under provision of the PML Act held as follows, 
“Having   a   sizable   or   any   and   every   unaccounted   money,
would not epso facto indicate the commission of an offence
under the PMLA 2002.  In other words in order to prove the
offence of money­laundering it has to be established that the
money involved are the proceeds of crime and having full
knowledge of the same, the person concerned projects it as
'untainted   property'.   The   process   undertaken   in   doing   to
amounts to offence of 'money­laundering'.

Sanjay   Raut(A5)   though   had   received   some   monies   as

alleged in the Prosecution Complaint from Pravin Raut (A3), yet there is
absolutely nothing to show that, it is a POC with knowledge thereof to
Sanjay   Raut(A5).     Basically   it   is   not   a   POC.     Therefore,   some
unaccounted   money   had   been   dealt   with   by   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   at   the
relevant   time   during   2007­11   or   any   other   period   thereafter,   for
purchasing   plots   at   Kihim,   cannot   be   thrown   in   the   stock   of   POC.
Possessing   and   dealing   with   unaccounted   money   may   have   different
consequences under the different Penal Laws, but the same cannot be
equated with the term POC defined under Sec.2(1)(u) of the PML Act
for   making   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   accountable   and   liable   under   the   wide
meaning of the opening word “Whosoever” in Sec.3 of the PML Act.  

128. In the above context, it can be added that even if Sanjay
Raut(A5) in his statement under Sec.50 of the PML Act had referred the
name of one Kantibhai of Dadar to justify alleged unaccounted cash and
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 99.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

ED   contended   that   no   such   person   or   entity   was   actually   found   in

existence, the same will not throw him (A5) directly under Sec.2(1)(u)
r.w. Sec.3 under assumption and presumption that the same relates to
any   criminal   activity   relating   to   Scheduled   Offence.     Question   of
presumption   under   Sec.24   of   the   PML   Act   does   not   arise   with   the
quality of such material, which is discussed above.   

129. In   the   statements   of   Kantilal   Doshi   dt.01.02.2022   and

07.08.2022   he   has   stated   that   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   and   his   wife   Varsha
Raut   had   once   invested   in   the   project   of   Prathmesh   Developers   LLP
which   was   started   in   2010   at   village   Kurgaon,   Plot   No.3,4   and   5
approximately 629 sq. mtrs.  Sanjay Raut(A5) from his bank account in
Saraswat Bank had transferred Rs.17,10,000/­ on 08.10.2011 and from
the   bank   account   in   Kurla   Nagrik   Bank,   Mrs.   Varsha   Raut   had
transferred   Rs.12,40,000/­.     In   this   way   prima­facie   he   has   given
account of the money transfers which corroborate the contention of the
applicant(A5).  Question No.7 is put to him specifically asking as to how
there was an extra amount of Rs.37.75 Lakh in addition to the original
investment, was paid to Sanjay Raut and Mrs. Varsha Raut within one
month   of   the   investment,   although   the   project   was   not   started.
However,   he   has   stated   that   he   is   a   small   shareholder   amongst   the
shareholder,   holding   shares   of   5%.     Most   of   the   decisions   of   the
company were taken by Pravin Raut(A3) who possessing major shares
i.e.70% stake and he had paid the said amount as per the instruction of
Pravin Raut (A3).  He has specifically stated that, he does not know the
reason why Pravin Raut (A3) decided to pay the extra amount to Sanjay
Raut(A5) Mrs. Varsha Raut.   He was further asked in a leading way,
whether these transactions are done by Pravin Raut (A3) in his personal
capacity   and   whether   in   lieu   of   these   transactions   any   benefit   was
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 100.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

received by the company person and he was again asked to state the
similar type of any other transactions.   On this, he has clearly stated
that   he   does   not   know   about   those   transactions   and   they   can
explain the same.  

130. Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Mundergi pointed out answers given by
Pravin Raut (A3) in his statement dt.05.02.2022 wherein he states that,
Sanjay   Raut(A5)   and   Mrs.   Varsha   Raut   had   invested   in   premises
developed   by   Prathmesh   Developers   LLP   in   Kurgaon   village,   Palghar
Taluka.   They have invested Rs.35 Lakh approximately and purchased
ground   +   2   structure   admeasuring   5000   sq.   feet.     Though   the   RCC
structure was completed, yet the Kul (tenancy right holder) had filed an
appeal   claiming   tenancy   right   before   Prant   Adhikari,   wherein   the
Appellate Authority passed an order in his favour.   When he(A3) took
bookings,   was   not   aware   of   this   fact,   hence,   he   returned   the   total
amount   +   profit   i.e.   Rs.50   Lakh   (booking   amount   of   Rs.35   Lakh   +
profit of Rs.15 Lakh) taken from Mrs. Varsha and Sanjay Raut(A5).  He
further stated that when the said tenancy dispute was revealed, Mrs.
Varsha and Sanjay Raut(A5) were interested in that particular premise
only therefore, he returned the initial booking amount + profit within a
month.   Therefore, whatever stated by Kantilal Doshi on 07.08.2022 is
fully corroborated to the statement of Pravin Raut (A3) dt.05.02.2022.
Again   the   question   remains   that,   those   amounts   Rs.17,10,000/­   and
Rs.12,40,000/­  invested  by Mrs. Varsha  and  Sanjay  Raut(A5)  do  not
have any nexus between them and alleged POC.   

131. Ramji Veera, friend of Pravin Raut (A3) in his statement
dt.24.08.2012 stated that Pravin Raut (A3) is his good friend.  ED's case
is   that   when   they   took   search   in   the   house   of   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   got
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 101.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

certificate­cum­policy schedule in respect of Innova  bearing MH02­CV
7749   of   which   stands   in   the   name   of   this   Ramji   Veera.     Therefore,
question No.6 put to him specifically for the reason thereof.  He stated
that, he is the said policy holder in respect of the vehicle Innova which
was purchased on his name by Prathmesh Developers LLP.  On the basis
of his statement as such ED contended that the said money and vehicle
purchased   from   it,   is   laundered   money   and   a   property   derived   from
POC.  Basically there is nothing as such at the prima­facie stage to draw
such far­fetched inference.  Even if the vehicle standing in the name of
Ramji Veera is purchased for Prathmesh Developers LLP, wherein Pravin
Raut   was   70%   shareholder,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the   same   is   an
incriminating   material   to   prima­facie   establish   with   POC.     Many
statements and even ED has also not disputed long friendship of Pravin
Raut (A3) and Sanjay Raut(A5) and their close family relations.   It is
also an admitted fact that, Pravin Raut (A3) is in the business of real
estate, builder and developer, even since 2000 onwards.   Considering
their close family relations if he purchases vehicle in the name of Ramji
Veera and allows the same for the use of Sanjay Raut(A5) alongwith
policy documents, can it be straight way said that it is POC generated
from the criminal activities relating to Scheduled Offence or a property
purchased from the POC?  

132. In the same way ED has made a case that Pravin Raut from
the POC arranged foreign trips for Sanjay Raut(A5) and his family. Even
certain facts are on record.   These two close families had travelled at
the relevant time.  Merely Pravin Raut (A3) could not give the account
of money relating to travel tickets, for want of remembrance, can it be
straight   way   connected   with   POC   or   the   criminal   activity   relating   to
Scheduled Offence?   Basically ED is miserably failed to point out any
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 102.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

POC or even any criminal activity relating to Scheduled Offence, when
it is clearly pointed out by Pravin Raut (A3) that it was purely a civil
dispute at the relevant time and whatever misdeeds occurred in respect
of Patra Chawl Project were solely due to Rakesh (A1), Sarang (A2) and
their HDIL.   He has further clearly shown how the ED has shown the
same Rs.95 Cr. being POC generated by Rakesh (A1), Sarang (A2) and
HDIL by obtaining illegal loan from PMC Bank and he became alleged
recipient thereof.  I have also noted how this approbate and reprobate
stand of the ED cannot be acknowledged at law.  There are no POC nor
any criminal activity relating to the Scheduled Offence to prima­facie
hold Pravin Raut (A3) responsible for the same.  

133. Ld.   Sr.   Counsel   Mr.   Mundergi   submitted   that   Sanjay

Raut(A5) has shown Rs.55 Lakh personal loan taken from Mrs. Madhuri
Pravin   Raut   and   mentioned   the   same   in   his   Affidavit   submitted   for
Rajya   Sabha   Election.     Simply   he   had   returned   the   same,   pursuant
notice received from EOW, does not mean that he admits his guilt in
respect of money­laundering.   Regarding Rs.30 Lakh he has given the
explanation   that   Mrs.   Varsha   Raut   received   the   same   from   Avani
Infrastructure and the same is supported by the Ledger Account of the
said Avani Infrastructure.   Not only this but also Sanjay Raut(A5) had
mentioned   this   amount   as   outstanding   loan   in   his   Rajya   Sabha
Declaration   Form.     Regarding   repayment   of   Rs.37   Lakh   within   one
month, Pravin Raut (A3) has given plausible explanation for the same.
Even then the same does not point out any nexus with the alleged POC.

134. Ld.   A.S.G.   Mr.   Anil   Singh   argued   that,   contradiction

between   statements   of   the   witnesses   cannot   be   looked   into   and
therefore, whatever stated by the witnesses has to be accepted as it is.  I
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 103.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

carefully examined this argument.   I   have already noted that, even if

the statements under Sec.50(2) and (3) carry weightage, yet the quality
of its material cannot be ignored.   All these statements were recorded
subsequently or contemporary when Pravin Raut (A3) had filed his bail
application   and   opened   his   contention.     In   this   background
transposition   of   roles   attributed   to   Pravin   Raut   (A3)   and   Sanjay
Raut(A5) by  'Dramatis Personae'  in the Supplementary Complaint, has
great significance.   Therefore, quality of such material is always open
even at the stage of bail as held by the Hon'ble High Court recently in
the case of Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh (supra).  

135. At the cost of repetition in order to point out the quality of
the material relating to the statements, it is necessary to note that, in
the statement of Amol Khale dt.04.02.2022 verification note was taken
in   his   handwriting   as   to   how   he   submitted   the   said   statement
voluntarily   being   true   without   any   force,   pressure   and   coercion.     In
some statements such verification is not appearing.   It is material to
note   that,   another   witness   Vijay   Ushirkar   in   his   previous   statement
dt.04.02.2022 specifically denied having received any cash for his land
deal, but subsequently recently on 07.09.2022 in order to bring this fact
in support of ED, question No.2 was put to him as to why he denied
having received cash, in his statement dt.04.02.2022?   At this time he
states   that   at  the   time  of  his  previous  statement   he  was   under  fear,
hence   stated   one   thing   and   now   on   07.09.2022   stating   something
contradictory to his statement dt.04.02.2022.   How such material can
be   straight   way   accepted   to   uphold   the   contention   of   ED,   even   if
statements under Sec.50 carry importance?   Whether the Court owes
some higher duty or not even at the stage of bail to apply judicial mind?
Or   whether   Sec.50(2)   and   (3)   of   the   PML   Act   has   any   purport   to
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 104.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

suggest that Court is bound by such statement whatever may be the
quality of material thereof and has absolutely no option?  

136. Copies of Affidavits submitted by Sanjay Raut(A5) in the
process   of   Rajya   Sabha   Election   prima­facie   indicate   that   he   had
mentioned   each   and   every   Assets   therein   including   Rs.55   Lakh   and
whatever alleged in the complaint alongwith the source thereof.  ED has
made   much   capital   about   Avani   Infrastructure   being   bogus   entity
availed by the applicant(A5) only to accommodate entries in the name
of   Mrs.   Varsha   Ratu.     However,   copies   of   Ledger   Account   of   Avani
Infrastructure   which   is   the   best   prima­facie   evidence   do   not   support
such contention of ED.  In this background, I hold that even statement
of Shoaib Sequeira dt.11.07.2022 does not carry much importance as
the same has no connection with the Scheduled Offence and had been
recorded when Pravin Raut(A3) filed his bail application and disclosed
his contention.  

137. It is ED's contention that, Sanjay Raut(A5) has purchased
several plots at village Kihim, Alibaug at the rate below market value
and also paid the remaining amount in cash and thereby he (A5) has
used and influenced the cash received from the POC for purchasing the
said plots.   I have already discussed in  detail  the quality of material
available through the statements of plots sellers.  It cannot be ignored
that, those plots were purchased long long ago at the prevailing market
rate. He purchased it in the name of his wife Mrs. Varsha alongwith this
then partners Ms. Swapna  Patkar, Sujit  Patkar.    Ld. Sr.  Counsel  Mr.
Ashok   Mundergi   produced   copies   of  INDEX­II,   which   prima­facie
indicate that even todays market value of those properties is not as it
has   been   portrayed   by   the   ED   to   be   the   market   value     at   the
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 105.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

contemporary  time  of  their  purchase.   How   these  documents   can  be
ignored   and   exaggeration   made   by   ED   has   to   be   accepted?     Hence,
much discussion on this component is not necessary, particularly when
all   those   amounts   alleged   in   the   Supplementary   Complaint   have
absolutely no nexus either with POC or any criminal activity relating to
Scheduled Offence.   I have also noted pick and choose attitude of the
ED in not arraigning concerned MHADA officials. I have also noted how
the ED has not arraigned Ms. Swapna Patkar as accused nor arrested
her when their own allegations in the complaint and materials available
through   her   statements   prima­facie   demonstrate   that,   she   had   dealt
with POC with alleged knowledge thereof.  

138. ED has made much capital about alleged threats given by
Sanjay   Raut(A5)   to   Ms.   Swapna   Patkar   and   contended   that   Accused
No.5 is an influential person, hence cannot be released on bail.   It is
material to note that, Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Mundergi placed reliance on
the copy of FIR No.794/2022 dt.31.07.2022 registered at 20.00 hours
at Vakola Police Station under Ss.504, 506, 509 IPC for the alleged
incident/offence dt.22.11.2016, which itself speaks volumes.   The
most important thing is that Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone­VIII,
Mumbai,   submitted   his   long   report   to   the   Registrar,   National
Commission for Women, New Delhi, on 26.08.2020 with conclusion of
investigation as follows,
“20. As far as matters reported to the police, necessary legal action as
per law has already been taken by Vakola, Mahim and Manor Police
Stations  and  are either pending  before the competent  court or  are
pending investigation.   The allegations made in the application of
Smt.   Swapna   Patkar   are   borne   out   of   property   dispute   and
troubled   marriage   relationship.     The   dispute   between   the
applicant and the non­applicant over property is of civil nature
and   it   is   necessary   for   them   to   approach   the   competent   Civil
Court.   In connection with their family dispute, both the parties
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 106.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

have already approached Hon'ble Family Court and the same is
pending for hearing.

21. The allegations made by applicant Smt. Swapna Patkar are
found   to   be   without   any   evidence   and   are   borne   out   of   her
troubled   marriage   relationship   &   dispute   over   property.     The
disputes   are   civil   in   nature   and   both   parties   can   approach
competent courts to resolve the issues.   Hence, the application
needs no further inquiry.”

139. Statement   of   Pravin   Raut   (A3)   recorded   by   ED   on

05.02.2022 gives prima­facie clear account about the claims of ED.  In
the   written   submissions   (Exh.20)   filed   by   ED   on   02.11.2022,
everywhere   the   same   story   is   repeated   which   is   alleged   in   the
Supplementary Complaint.   It is also reiterated how Sanjay Raut(A5)
could not give  satisfactory explanation for the amount came into his
account   and   in   the   account   of   his   wife.     Basically   ED   cannot   travel
reverse saying that particular amounts revealed in the investigation and
found during house search of Sanjay Raut(A5) were unaccounted and
without   any   satisfactory   explanations,   hence   the   same   are   POC.
Basically first of all ED has to point out foundational facts relating to
existence of POC beyond reasonable doubt as to any particular amount
having   generated   as   POC   from   the   criminal   activities   relating   to
Scheduled   Offences.     'Unaccounted   Money'   without   explanation   and
without nexus with POC or any activity relating to Scheduled Offence
cannot be capitalised as done by the ED herein.  I have already referred
above paragraphs 31 to 33 in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
(supra).     Even   the   Hon'ble   High   Court   in   the   case   of   Ajay   Kumar
Chandraprakash   Baheti   Vs.   Directorate   of   Enforcement   (Cr.   Bail
Application No.1149 of 2021, already cited supra) held has follows, 
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 107.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

32. From the reading of above enunciation of law, it is evident
that,   the   offence   of   money­laundering,   however,   is   not   to   be
appreciated   in   isolation,   but   is   to   be   read   with   complementary
provisions, i.e., the offences enlisted in the schedule of the Act. The
language   of   Section   3   clearly   implies   the   money   involved   in   the
offence   of   money­laundering   is   necessarily   the   proceeds   of   crime,
arising out of a criminal activity in relation to the scheduled offence
enlisted in the Schedule of the Act. Hence, the essential ingredients
for the offence of Section 3 of the PMLA 2002 become :
i) The proceeds of crime 
ii) Proceeds of crime arising out of the offences specified in schedule  
     of the Act; 
iii) Factum of offence while committing the offence of money  
      laundering.

33.  Further   it   is   clear   that   the   allegations   must  be  proved   beyond
reasonable   doubt   and   the   Court   cannot   proceed   on   the   basis   of
preponderance   of   probabilities.   Unless   the   allegations   are
substantiated by the authorities and proved against a person in the
Court of law, the person is innocent. 

34.   Thus, in this case, to consider whether there is any reasonable
ground to believe that the applicant is guilty of alleged crime, it is
necessary to examine whether the alleged property being proceeds of
crime, derived or obtained, directly or indirectly by the applicant as a
result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence? 

45.  The expression “proceeds of crime” is defined under clause (u) of
Section 2(1) of the PMLA which makes it clear that proceeds of crime
means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any
person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence
or the value of any such property.

52. Having a sizable or any and every unaccounted money, would not
epso   facto   indicate   the   commission   of   an   offence   under   the   PMLA
2002.   In   other   words,   in   order   to   prove   the   offence   of   money­
laundering it has to be established that the money involved are the
proceeds of crime and having full knowledge of the same, the person
concerned projects it as ‘untainted property’. The process undertaken
in doing so amounts to offence of ‘money­laundering’.

140. In the background of above detailed discussion in respect
of bail application of Pravin Raut (A3) and Sanjay Raut(A5), I hold that,
basically   there   are   no   POC   nor   was   there   any   Scheduled   Offence   to
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 108.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

qualify the ECIR.  Pravin Raut (A3) was arrested for civil litigation and
Sanjay Raut(A5) for no reason.  Basically arrest of both of them under
Sec.19 PML Act is illegal for want of Scheduled Offence and the civil
dispute not being Scheduled Offence.   Therefore, question of coming
rigors of stringent twin conditions under Sec.45(1)(i)(ii) in their way
does not arise.  Even if for the sake of consideration it is assumed that
the said rigors attract, yet I hold that both accused (A3 and A5) have
satisfied the twin conditions as held by the Hon'ble High Court in the
case of Madan Gopal Chaturvedi  Vs.  Directorate of Enforcement (Cr.
Bail Application No.330 of 2022) held as follows,
20.   In   this   case,   the   Investigating   Agency   did   not   arrest   Sarang
Wadhawan and as a result thereof, Sarang Wadhawan could secure
bail   from   the   Special   Court   by   order   dated   07.04.2022.   The
investigation qua the applicant is complete.  The necessary seizure of
the documents have been made.  The two units have been attached.
Thus, I do not find any justification to detain the applicant behind
bar pending trial which may take some time for its conclusion.
The   later   aspect   has   also   been   acknowledged   by   learned   Special
Judge   in   the   order   dated   07.04.2022.    I   find   that   the   twin
conditions   in   Section   45(1)   are   satisfied   in   this   case.    In   the
circumstances of the case, I do not find it necessary to make detailed
reference to the cases cited, a the risk of prolixity.”

141. Some other aspects which make both applicants entitled to
get bail are necessary to be discussed which are as follows,  

ILLEGAL ARREST OF BOTH ACCUSED AS AN OUTCOME
OF PICK AND CHOOSE STRATEGY.
Prime and main object of the PML Act is 'Confiscation' and
not   an   illegal   arrest   and   detention   of   arrestee   for   uncertain   period.
Admittedly,   in  the   instant   case   ED  has   attached   properties   of   Pravin
Raut (A3) worth Rs.72 Crore and properties of Sanjay Raut(A5) more
than the claim of the money­laundering. I have already noted above,
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 109.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

only bald and bare words of Chandan Kelekar alleging two meetings
with the then Union Agriculture Minister and the then Chief Minister of
Maharashtra,  caused  arrest  of   Sanjay  Raut(A5)  and  formed  basis  for
Supplementary   Complaint.     High   level   MHADA   and   Government
officials had participated the said meetings as per Mr. Chandan Kelekar.
Yet,   none   of   them   is   made   accused   or   even   arrested,   in   spite   of
suspicious   conduct   of   MHADA   throughout   right   from   2007   till   date.
However, only Sanjay Raut(A5) was arrested.   Skipping all officials of
MHADA   and   Government   i.e.   T.   Chandrashekhar   etc,   referred   by
Mr.Chandan Kelekar, Wadhawans and Ms. Swapna Patkar, is nothing
but conveying a message to the then Union Agriculture Minister and
then then Chief Minister creating fear psyche in their mind that, they
are the next in this queue.   Certainly, this is not an object and true
purport of the PML Act.  

142. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down that,
power   to   arrest   has   to   be   used   exceptionally   as   a   last   resort.    The
Hon'ble  Supreme  Court   and  the   Hon'ble   High   Court   have   repeatedly
laid   down   that,   arrest   has   far   reaching   consequences   and   power   to
arrest is extreme and has to be exercised with great caution, sparingly
as a last resort.  The Hon'ble Lordship Shri Justice R.V. Raveendran of
the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   recently   in   the   Journal   Section   of   the
(2022)8   SCC   (J)1   mentioned   various   factors   in   his   article
“JUSTICE DELIVERY – SOME CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS, on page
9 para 2 as follows,
“Not all accused are guilty.   Many an innocent are being accused of
crimes  or are  framed   on the  basis  of   slip­shod   investigations,  false
accusations, political or local rivalry, and family vendetta.  Though a
person accused of a crime is deemed innocent till proved guilty in a
court of law, an arrest or being charged with an offence takes away
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 110.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

his freedom and livelihood, apart from destroying his reputation.  His
family members are shunned, becoming outcasts overnight.   At any
given point of time, there are about three lakh undertrials (persons
held  in custody awaiting  trial) locked  up in  prisons, making up  fo
about two­thirds of the prison population.”

  ED Investigating Officers are not Police Officers, but have
power   to   arrest   as   per   Sec.19   (1)   of   the   PML   Act,   which   reads   as
follows,
19. Power to arrest – (1) If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant
Director, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central
Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material
in his possession reason to believe (the reason for such belief to
be   recorded   in   writing)   that   any   person   has   been   guilty   of   an
offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and
shall,   as   soon  as   may   be,   inform   him   of   the   grounds   for   such
arrest.”

  The  material   available   with  ED  Investigating   Officer   was

FIR   No.22   of   2018   registered   for   the   offence   relating   to   the   facts
allegedly took place during 2007 to 2011.  The materials available with
the Main Complaint and Supplementary Complaint prima­facie indicate
a long civil litigation which delayed project, caused due to misdeeds of
Rakesh   Kumar   Wadhawan   (A1),   Sarang   Wadhawan   (A2)   and   their
HDIL, which too was acknowledged by the Hon'ble High Court.   Yet,
Pravin Raut (A3) and Sanjay Raut(A5) were arrested for the same.  It is
also a clear case of ED that initially there was huge amount of POC
Rs.1039.79   Crore   and   hardly   10%   thereof   i.e.   Rs.95   Cr./Rs.100
Cr/Rs.112   Cr.   had   come   to   Pravin   Raut   (A3)   and   very   meager,
approximately   1%   of   the   said   Rs.112   Cr.,   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   allegedly
received  Rs.1,06,44,375   (Main   PC)   and     Rs.3,27,85,475   (as   per
Supplementary Complaint).  Admittedly, their (A3 and A5) properties
were attached by ED under PAO.   ED has also taken a self­destructive
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 111.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

stand that Pravin Raut (A3) received POC Rs.95 Crore from the illegal
outstanding huge loan raised by Wadhawans and their HDIL from PMC
Bank.  

143. It   is   an   astonishing   admitted   fact   that   Rakesh   (A1)   and

Sarang   (A2)   Wadhawans   who   not   only   generated   huge   Rs.1039.79
Crore, but also allegedly placed, layered and integrated the same, were
never arrested by the ED I.O. under the power of Sec.19 of the PML Act.
It is the ED who had filed many complaints/ECIRs relating to money
laundering wherein these Wadhawans are accused and arrested by the
ED   and   they   could   not   secure   bail   till   date   in   such   so   many   other
cases/crimes. However, in the instant case considering the major role
attributed to them which they (A1 and A2) have also admitted, yet ED
has not arrested and allowed them to be scot­free, for the reasons best
known to them.  

144. On the other hand, ED arrested Pravin Raut (A3) purely for
a civil dispute which is not any Scheduled Offence and Sanjay Raut(A5)
for   no   reasons.     All   this   prima­facie   indicates   that   the   extreme   and
exceptional powers of arrest, ED Investigating Officers have used very
casually in utter disregard to Sec.19 of the PML Act, which is very very
serious   in   the   background   of   repeated   guidelines   of   the   Hon'ble
Supreme Court in respect of arrest.   It cannot be ignored that Pravin
Raut (A3) was arrested on 02.02.2022 and eversince till date for about
nine months he has been behind bars.  Similarly Sanjay Raut(A5)  was
arrested on  01.08.2022  and eversince till date behind bars more than
three   months.     Basically,   there   was   no   reason   nor   any   occasion   to
arrest both of them under Sec.19 of the  PML Act for the  allegations
which are basically nothing but a civil dispute.  Basically, the arrest of
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 112.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

both of them under Sec.19 is not qualified.  It is material to note that,
initially ED raided the house of Sanjay Raut(A5) on 31.07.2022 and did
not allow him(A5) to move anywhere throughout the day. Thereafter,
he was brought to ED office and after grilling him, in the mid­night of
31.07.2022 arrested him at 12.35 a.m. of 01.08.2022.  Basically there
was no legal necessity to arrest him in the mid­night when in reality he
could not avail the benefits of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar.  Today we are in the era of
Vijay  Madanlal  Choudhari (Paras 31,32,33), D.K. Basu, Arneshkumar
and Satender Kumar Antil.   But the ED appears to have ignored the
same.  His presence could have been secured by way of summons and
not by the way in which he was arrested in the late night.

145. He was summoned earlier but he  sought time to remain

present.  That could not be the reason to exercise power of arrest with
such   extremity   when   ED   had   never   arrested   main   accused   persons
Rakesh Wadhawan and Sarang Wadhawan.  Therefore, I am of the firm
opinion   that   arrest   of   both   accused   (A3   and   A5)   is   basically   illegal
without any qualifications required under Sec.19 of the PML Act.  This
itself is sufficient to release both the accused on bail.  It is pertinent to
note that after such unusual mid­night arrest of Sanjay Raut(A5) and
even   during   the   first   ED   custody   period   he(A5)   was   kept   in   a
windowless  room   where  only  four   walls were   around  him.     Accused
No.5 pointed out that he had undergone Angioplasty twice and there
are six stents in his heart. He also made complaint before this Court,
how he was kept in a room where there is absolutely no ventilation and
how he is unable to sustain air­condition.   It is only then due to the
Court intervention  he could get a room  with some ventilation in  ED
custody.   All this prima­facie indicates that his arrest is nothing but a
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 113.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

witch­hunt   and   annihilation   of   his   valuable   rights.     Ld.   Counsel   Mr.

Aabad Ponda and Mr. Ashok Mundergi pointed out disparity committed
by the ED while arresting both accused(A3 and A5) by leaving the main
accused   persons   Rakesh(A1)   and   Sarang(A2)   Wadhawans   scot­free.
When this disparity is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court is
under legal obligation to make parity.  This alone is sufficient to release
both accused on bail.  

EXTRA­ORDINARY PACE OF THE ED IN CAUSING ARREST AND
NOT EVEN A SNAIL SPEED IN CONDUCTING TRIALS.

146. Experience   of   this   Court   constrained   me   to   note   that   in

every ECIR the speed of ED in arresting accused is extra­ordinary.  Even
in every matter whole period of 14­15 days prescribed under Cr.P.C. is
consumed and exhausted in seeking ED custody of the accused.  Once
any accused is remanded in judicial custody, the pace taken by ED for
arresting   him   automatically   gets   down   to   almost   zero.     Once   the
applicant (accused) files bail applications, ED takes at least three to four
weeks or more than that to file their reply.  In the instant case, Pravin
Raut   filed   his   bail   application   on   05.05.2022.     From   18.05.2022
onwards,   31.05.2022   and   08.06.2022   ED   did   not   file   their   say.     On
21.06.2022 ED filed their say, which clearly indicates that one and half
months ED took to file say to bail application of Pravin Raut (A3) when
he   is   an   under­trial   prisoner.     Decision   of   his   bail   application   is
condition precedent to decide bail application of Sanjay Raut(A5) also,
which the ED wanted to prolong for long time.  Apart from this, in every
matter   it   is   noticed   that,   ED   takes   very   very   long   time   to   reply   the
simple applications filed by any accused.  
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 114.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

147. I am constrained to refer the example on this aspect.     In

Special Case No.6 of 2019 Purshis (Exh.127) on behalf of Accused No.2
informing his death was filed on 12.05.2022 alongwith copy of death
certificate.   In order to safeguard interest of the ED, this Court simply
asked  them  to  verify  this  fact  to  pass an   order   of   abatement.     I  am
constrained   to   note   that   ED   simply   consumed   time   from   12.05.2022
and   ultimately   filed   their   very   very   long   reply   (Exh.142)   referring
unwarranted contention as to how money was laundered as alleged in
the offence, purport of Sec.70 of IPC and further contended to reject the
application.  A simple Purshis informing death took ED to file very long
reply which runs in 7­8 pages.   How the trials of PMLA cases would
progress?     This   Court   has   submitted   detailed   report   to   the   Hon'ble
Principle   Judge   on   13.05.2022   responding   the   representation
dt.06.04.2022 made by the Enforcement Directorate.  

148. I am constrained to note that, not a single trial right from
the establishment of this Designated Court, the ED has concluded by
leading evidence and the Court could not give a single judgment right
from the last decade.  This Court has submitted a detailed report to the
Hon'ble Principal Judge, regarding such modus­operandi availed by the
ED in conducting trials.   Every time explanation to Sec.44 of the PML
Act stating that, “Further investigation is going on in each and every
case”   is   capitalised.     Even   the   cases   wherein   this   Court   has   framed
charge, could not record evidence more than one­two pages.   In this
way, the extra­ordinary pace with which ED arrests accused becomes
not even a snail speed in conducting trials.   It appears that ED knows
only Ss.19 and 45 of the PML Act, but forgets that there is a provision
for   trial   of   an   offence   under   PML   Act   as   per   Sec.44   thereof.     It   is
unfortunate that even this Court is forgetting that evidence has to be
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 115.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

recorded, trials have to be conducted and judgments are to be delivered
even   in   the   PMLA   special   cases.     There   is   absolutely   not   a   single
judgment after a complete trial in this Court right from the beginning
and during the tenure of my all Ld. Predecessors.  Is ED not accountable
for   such   modus­operandi   availed   by   them   in   not   beginning   and
concluding a single trial?  I have already noted above how ED took one
and half months to file say to the bail application of Pravin Raut (A3).
Time has come to make ED aware of Sec.44 of the PML Act and this
Court is duty bound to do so in view of the oath it has taken to
work without fear and without favour.   Everyone including the ED
knows recent directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and every bail
application has to be decided as expeditiously as possible not more than
the span of time provided therein.  In this background it is necessary to
take   serious   note   that   Pravin   Raut's   (A3)   bail   application   has   been
pending since 05.05.2022 i.e. more than six months, and even Sanjay
Raut's   (A5)   bail   application   has   been   pending   since   08.09.2022   i.e.
more than three months, even if both of them were illegally arrested
under   Sec.19   of   the   PML   Act.   Yet,   the   ED   wants   to   keep   those
applications pending for uncertain period.  This is very serious.  All this
prima­facie indicates that, ED is forgetting that, we are in the era of
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (paragraphs 31 to 33), D.K. Basu, Arnesh
Kumar   and   Satender   Kumar   Antil.     The   directions   in   the   Satender
Kumar Antil are equally binding on ED.  

149. Contention   of   ED   in   the   Supplementary   Complaint   of

making  'Dramatis   Personae'  while   transposing   roles   attributed   to
Pravin Raut (A3) and Sanjay Raut(A5) and that Pravin Raut (A3) was
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 116.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

front­man, proxy for Sanjay Raut(A5), is not sustainable in the natural
course   of   conduct.     Their   own   case   indicates   that   Pravin   Raut   (A3)
generated and laundered Rs.112 Crore and Sanjay Raut(A5) received
Rs.1,06,44,375   (Main   PC)   and   Rs.3,27,85,475   (as   per
Supplementary Complaint) therefrom. No person like Sanjay Raut(A5)
would allow his front­man to earn Rs.112 Crore and pay him a very
meager   therefrom  Rs.1,06,44,375/Rs.3,27,85,475,  and  purchases
properties therefrom.   Apart from this, I have  discussed already how
except bald and bare words of Mr. Chandan Kelekar stating a tale that,
once upon a time there were two meetings allegedly taken by the then
Union   Agriculture   Minister   and   the   then   Chief   Minister,   there   is
absolutely nothing to prima­facie justify such contention.   I have also
held   that,   a   person   may   possesses   unaccounted   money   and   Sanjay
Raut(A5) might have possessed the same and purchased the properties
at Kihim, Dist. Raigad, Innova car etc. but the same cannot presumably
bring him and fasten with the Proceeds of Crime when the ED is duty
bound   to   prima­facie   establish   the   existence   of   POC   generated   by   a
criminal activity relating to the Scheduled Offence. This vital element is
absent in the case of both the accused (A3 and A5) for detaining them
in judicial custody by rejecting their bail applications.  

150. This is a fact that eversince Pravin Raut (A3) was granted
bail   in   the   Scheduled   Offence,   he   has   not   committed   breach   of   any
conditions imposed by the then Court.  Similarly Sanjay Raut(A5) is a
Member   of   Parliament   (Rajya   Sabha)   and   there   is   no   likelihood   of
fleeing from justice and absconding.  In the background of all detailed
discussion in respect of bail applications of Pravin Raut (A3) and Sanjay
Raut(A5) on giving opportunity to the Ld. A.S.G. Mr. Anil Singh and Ld.
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 117.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

S.P.P Mr. Hiten Venegavkar and opposing these applications by them,
this Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that both accused (A3 and A5) are not guilty of such offence and that
they are not likely to commit offence while on bail.

151. Ld. A.S.G. Mr. Anil Singh placed his reliance on following
authorities, 
i. Marath Sashidharan Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and another
(Criminal   Bail   Application   No.1046   of   2021,   decided   on
23.02.2022).
ii. National Investigation Agency  Vs.  Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali,
(2019)5 SCC 1.
iii. Pawan alias Tamatar   Vs.   Ram Prakash Pandey and another,
(2002)9 SCC 166.
iv. State of U.P.   Vs.   Gayatri Prasad Prajapati (2020 SCC OnLine
SC 843).
v. Satish Jaggi   Vs.   State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2007)11
SCC 195.
vi. Gharban   Ali   Pour   Azadi     Vs.     Intelligence   Officer,   Air
Intelligence Unit, Bombay and Others (1996 SCC OnLine Bom
59).
vii. Gautam Kundu  Vs.  Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of
Money­Laundering   Act)   Government   of   India,   through   Manoj
Kumar, Assistaant Director, Eastern Region, (2015)15 SCC 1.

  I carefully studied the ratio, guidelines and law laid down
in the above authorities.  However, facts in the instant case are peculiar,
wherein ED has taken duel stand and contended the Proceed of Crime
involved in the instant ECIR and in the ECIR of 2019 is one and the
same.   Basically this Court prima­facie held that such self­destructive
stand itself proves the case of the applicants.  Apart from this, I am of
the prima­facie opinion that civil litigation is the reason for arrest and
ECIR of both accused which is basically not a Predicate Offence.  There
is absolutely  nothing to show  that right from  the  inception  in 2006­
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 118.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

2007   Pravin   Raut   (A3)   and   also   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   keeping   himself
behind   the   curtain,   entered   this   project   with   a   wise   brain   with   an
intention to fraudulently induce and cheat MHADA and 672 occupants
thereof.     A1,A2   and   their   HDIL   clearly   admitted   that   their   misdeeds
caused   delay   and   the   same   was   acknowledged   by   the   Hon'ble   High
Court when the MHADA too consented it.  All this has been ignored by
ED and caused  arrest of both accused by the extreme use of power.  In
this way both of them were illegally arrested under Sec.19 of the PML
Act.  In none of the above authorities such peculiar facts are involved.
Therefore,   with   great   respect   the     parameters   and   ratio   laid   down
therein are not applicable to this case. 

CONCLUSION
152. After hearing both sides at length and on going through the
detailed   written   submissions   and   rejoinders,   this   Court   reached   at
following conclusion.

i. Extreme and exceptional power of effecting arrest which ought
to have been used very very sparingly, has been used by the ED
Investigating Officers under Sec.19 of the PML Act, is ab­initio
illegal.   Hence,   on   this   count   alone   the   question   of   attracting
rigors of stringent twin conditions under Sec.45(1)(i)(ii) of the
PML Act does not arise and both accused cannot be detained in
the judicial custody henceforth, for the same. 
ii. Simply labeling pure civil disputes with “money­laundering” or
“an Economic Offence” itself cannot automatically acquire such
status   and   ultimately   drag   an   innocent   person   in   a   miserable
situation in the guise of arrest under Sec.19 and stringent twin
conditions of Sec.45(1)(i)(ii) of the PML Act.  THE Court has to
do what is right irrespective of who is before it.
iii. From   the   records   materials   and   the   detailed   discussion   made
above, it is clear how Pravin Raut (A3) is arrested for a pure civil
litigation, whereas Sanjay Raut(A5) for no reason.  This truth is
glaring. The Court is under legal obligation and duty to find out
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 119.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

truth even at the stage of bail.  The Hon'ble Supreme Court time
and again laid down, “Truth is the guiding star.  Criminal trial
is voyage of discovery of truth.  The truth alone triumphs and
every endeavour has to be made by the Court to discover the
truth and make justice.”  
iv. Even otherwise the twin conditions cast such an important duty
on the Court to have a thorough examination and assessment at
the stage of bail without making any mini­trial
v Even   if   MHADA,   who   is   party   to   the   every   stage   and   every
litigation, which had reached upto the Hon'ble High Court, yet
astonishingly   lodged   FIR   No.22   of   2018   for   the   facts   and
circumstances   of   transaction   which   had   allegedly   taken   place
during 2006 to 2013.  In this way the conduct of MHADA right
from beginning till date is suspicious and even ED admitted the
same in their complaints, yet ED has not made any MHADA staff
accused.
vi MHADA's attitude as such lodging FIR No.22 of 2018 on one fine
morning can neither throw dust in the eyes of the Court nor can
brush   of   and   wash   out   long   civil   litigations   which   were   even
acknowledged by the Hon'High Court.  Hence, this Court cannot
join its voice in the chorus of ED and MHADA.  
vii Rakesh and Sarang (A1 and A2) for their misdeeds and being the
main accused persons admitted the same by affidvit of Sarang
Wadhawan, were not arrested by the ED but they have been left
scot­free.  But at the same time Pravin Raut(A3) was arrested for
civil dispute, whereas Sanjay Raut(A5) for no reason.     All this
clearly indicates disparity, pick and choose attitude of the ED and
the Court cannot put premium on the same but legally bound to
make parity.  
viii If   the   Court   still   accepts   contention   of   ED   and   MHADA   and
further   rejects   the   bail   applications   of   Pravin   Raut   (A3)   and
Sanjay Raut(A5) that will amount putting premium on such pick
and choose strategies of the Agency.  Certainly in that event any
common man, innocent and honest people, will loose faith and
confidence which they have reposed in the judicial system as a
temple  of   justice.    Hence,  judicial  principles    which  guide  the
Court cannot be ignored.  
ix. Many statements of witnesses recorded by ED clearly refer the
prominent role of Wadhawans (A1 and A2) and their HDIL, but
they   were   not   arrested   and   Pravin   Raut   (A3)   and   Sanjay
Raut(A5) who have absolutely no concern in generating POC or
laundering   money   as   well   as   indulging   the   criminal   activities
relating to the Scheduled Offence, were arrested for subsequent
transactions,   they   have   made   from   their   own   money.     Such
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 120.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

conduct   of   the   Agency   cannot   be   garbed   for   detaining   both

accused (A3 and A5) behind bars for an uncertain period. 
x. Like the laudable object of the PML Act casting duty on the Court
to safeguard it, equally the court is protector of rights of accused
and     innocent persons who  are illegally arrested.     The Court
cannot become predator of such valuable rights of the accused,
but is duty bound to be a protector thereof as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.  If the Court ignores this aspect, where
the people will go for justice?  
xi This   Court   being   the   Court   of   First   Instance   has   great
responsibility of not committing a slightest mistake which  will
turn into miscarriage of justice.  Therefore, this Court has taken a
thorough survey of the available records/materials within four
corners of the limits required to resolve this question relating to
the   twin   conditions   and   only   thereafter,   arrived   at   such
conclusion   by   not   transgressing   the   boundaries   and   not
committing any mini­trial.    
Xii. In PMLA bail matters, orders become long and run into at least
around 40­50 pages, does not mean that Court has done mini­
trial as argued by the Ld. A.S.G. Mr. Anil Singh.  On the contrary
the stringent twin conditions under Sec.45(1)(i)(ii) of the PML
Act prescribe prima­facie thorough examination.  Even the recent
order of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Anil Vasantrao
Deshmukh (supra) runs into 53 pages.   The present order is a
common order for two bail applications relating to voluminous
record, hence bound to run in number of pages. 

153. With this, I hold that both accused are basically arrested
illegally.  Both of them are entitled to parity in view of disparity made
by   the   ED   in   not   arresting   the   main   accused   persons   Rakesh(A1),
Sarang   (A2),   their   HDIL,   MHADA   and   Government   Officials/staff
responsible for misdeeds of A1 and A2 at the relevant time in 2006­
2018.   Apart from this, I also held that both accused have satisfied twin
conditions under Sec.45(1)(i)(ii) of the PML Act.   There is absolutely
nothing   before   the   Court   that   eversince   Pravin   Raut   (A3)   has   been
released on bail in a Scheduled Offence, he has committed any breach
of   the   conditions   imposed   by   the   said   Court.     Similarly,   whatever
contended   by   ED   against   Sanjay   Raut(A5)   can   be   safeguarded   by
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 121.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

imposing certain conditions on him.  Hence, there is no likelihood that
both of them will likely to commit any offence while on bail.   Hence,
Point   No.1   is   answered   in   the   affirmative   and   following   order   is
passed :­

ORDER

1. Bail Application (Exh.8) and Bail Application No.582 of
2022 are allowed.

2. Pravin Raut (A3) and Sanjay Raut (A5) be released on
bail in PMLA Special Case No.356 of 2022 (ECIR/MBZO­
I/80/2021  by   everyone   of   them   executing   PR   bond   of
Rs.2,00,000/­   (Rupees   Two   Lakh)   with   one   or   two
sureties of like amount.

3. Both accused shall undertake not to pressurize any of the
prosecution witnesses and not to indulge in any activity
detrimental to the interest of this case of ED.

4. Both accused shall undertake that they will not skip the
important dates relating to important stages in the trial
i.e. framing of charge, recording of evidence etc.

5. Both accused (A3 and A5) shall not leave India without
prior permission of the Court.

6. Both   accused   are   permitted   be   released   on   provisional

cash security of Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rupees Two Lakh) each
with PR bond for two months.
Digitally signed by
MADHAV MADHAV GOPAL
GOPAL DESHPANDE
DESHPANDE Date: 2022.11.09
15:35:45 +0700

Dt.: 09.11.2022            ( M.G. Deshpande ) 
           Spl. Judge under the PML Act,
         City Sessions Court, 
               Mumbai.
Signed on  : 09.11.2022.
COMMON OBE­8 & B.A.582 of 2022 .. 122.. PMLA Spl. Case No.356/2022

“CERTIFIED   TO   BE   TRUE   AND   CORRECT   COPY   OF   THE   ORIGINAL

SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”

09.11.2022       at         hours (KISHOR PRAKASH SHERWADE)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ M. G. DESHPANDE
(COURT ROOM NO.16)
Date   of   pronouncement   of 09.11.2022
judgment/order
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on  09.11.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on  09.11.2022