ANIRUDDH GHOSHAL V. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CBI

B.A./2085/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Aniruddh Ghoshal, who was accused in connection with a series of financial frauds conducted by M/s. Roofers Group of Companies, which involved illegal collection of money from the public under the guise of high-interest deposit schemes without the necessary approvals from RBI and SEBI. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the investigation following directives from the High Court. The petitioner argued that he was a nominal director and not involved in the actual business activities, which were controlled by Hirak Nath Sounth and his family. The court considered the petitioner's limited role and lack of substantial financial gain from the alleged activities in granting bail.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724767 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, PMLA Act, 2002, Chit Fund Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NITU SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT DAS
• Keywords: Cheating; Fake documents; Illegal money collection; High interest promise; Banking without license; Recurring deposit scheme; Fixed deposit scheme
• Section: 79; 76; 70; 420; 471; 120B; 406; 467

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 2085 of 2020 --- Aniruddh Ghoshal … … Petitioner Versus Union of India through CBI … … Opp. Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate For the CBI : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate --- 04/10.06.2020 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with R.C.26(S)/17/EOW registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 70 of the PMLA Act, 2002 and Sections 76 and 79 of the Chit Fund Act. It has been alleged that joint enquiry was conducted against M/s. Roofers Capital Management Limited and during enquiry it was detected that the said company was not authorized by the RBI and SEBI for doing business of banking but they were collecting amounts from customers though agents on the false promise of very high rate of interest in Recurring Deposit and Fixed Deposit etc. It has been alleged that the company had formed and organized a gang for personal benefit for cheating the public on the basis of fake documents and in the said offence the Directors, Partners and Branch Managers of the company are involved. Another First Information Report was instituted in which it was alleged that the accused officials of M/s. Roofers Group of Companies had made a conspiracy to collect money illegally from the public in the name of sale of different products without taking any permission from RBI and SEBI and in pursuance thereof they had opened branch offices at Govindpur, Jamtara and more than fifty other places in the State of Jharkhand and other States by announcing Recurring Deposit Scheme and fixed deposit scheme and had started collecting money from -2- different investors on the false promise of giving a high rate of interest and making the money double within sixty-three months. Another First Information Report was instituted which was registered as P.C.R. Case No. 111 of 2014 making similar allegations as in the other First Information Report. Pursuant to the order passed on 11.05.2015 by this Court in W.P.(P.I.L.) No. 1635 of 2014 and the order dated 21.04.2017 passed in W.P.(P.I.L.) No. 642 of 2016 and other analogous cases Central Bureau of Investigation was directed to take over further investigation and consequent to the same all the three cases referred to above were investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. It has been stated by Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner earlier used to working in Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited and thereafter he had joined the services at Bajaj Allianz on 21.07.2009 as a Relationship Manager. It has been stated that in the year 2010 on the offer of M/s. Roofers Group of Companies he had joined and later on he was posted as Director in three companies out of which two companies never entered into any active business. It has been stated that Director Identification Number (DIN) was allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated 19.01.2011 and it is evident that two of the three companies never entered into any actual business after incorporation. It has been stated by Mr. Das while referring to his bank account that the transactions were quite normal and no substantial amount was ever deposited in his account. It has further been stated that the income tax return for the period 2013-14 disclosed that the income of the petitioner was Rs. 7,26,530/-. Learned counsel submits that the entire facts would indicate that the petitioner was a nominal head and was never involved in the illegal business conducted by M/s. Roofers Group of Companies. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2019. Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation has referred to the charge-sheet and has stated that the petitioner in connivance with the other accused persons had -3- raised the huge amount by illegally issuing non-convertible redeemable promising high return after maturity period in violation of the norms and guidelines led by RBI and SEBI etc. It has been submitted that the general public in the State of Jharkhand had been duped into investing in M/s. Roofers Group of Companies and the promise of high returns were extended to the investors. Learned counsel further submits that the entire records with respect to audit report, bank records return submitted with the registrar of the companies reveals about the participation and involvement of the petitioner in the nefarious activities of M/s. Roofers Group of Companies. The Bank statement which has been brought on record does indicate that there has not been any huge transaction in the account of the petitioner which is contrary to the allegations regarding the petitioner being one of the beneficiaries along with the other accused persons from the illegal act of raising money from the general public for the purpose of investment on the promise of giving a high return. The petitioner also appears to have been made the Director of three companies out of which two of the companies were defunct. It appears that during course of investigation it was detected that the various companies which formed the M/s. Roofers Group of Companies were incorporated by the main accused Hirak Nath Sounth and his family members with the Register of the Companies West Bengal for carrying out various businesses. Initially, all the Directors of the companies appear to be the relative of Hirak Nath Sounth and the said Hirak Nath Sounth had played a pivotal role along with his family members in floating the company and duping the investors of a huge amount. The petitioner although was made a Director but the circumstances denote that the entire transactions were being controlled by Hirak Nath Sounth and his family members. The income tax return of the petitioner also does not indicate a-surge in his income during the period he was the Director of one of the companies. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- -4- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, CBI cum Additional Sessions Judge – XI, Dhanbad, in connection with R.C.26(S)/17/EOW subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioner. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/- "