PRABHU DAYAL RANDAR ALIAS PRABHU DAYAL RANDHER ALIAS PRABHU DAYAL RANDHAR V. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CBI

A.B.A./2317/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Prabhu Dayal Randar, who is accused of being the controller of Kites Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, a company allegedly involved in a conspiracy to transfer its PAN from Kolkata to Ranchi to gain undue tax advantages. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) charged the petitioner under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging that this transfer was part of a larger scheme involving the Principal Income Tax Commissioner, Ranchi, and other co-accused, to manipulate tax assessments favorably. The prosecution presented evidence of forged documents and financial transactions that purportedly benefited the accused. The defense argued that the petitioner did not gain any unlawful advantage from these actions, citing specific tax assessments that did not favor the petitioner. The court, considering the severity of the allegations and the evidence presented, denied the anticipatory bail application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 737117 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PRASHANT PALLAV; BAJRANG KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: TAPESH SINGH; C K JAIN; RUPESH SINGH
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Conspiracy; Custodial interrogation; Financial loss; Unlawful gain
• Section: 68; 12; 264; 13(2); 7; 13(1)(d); 120B

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2317 of 2022 ------ Prabhu Dayal Randar @ Prabhu Dayal Randher @ Prabhu Dayal Randhar .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The Union of India through C.B.I. .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Tapesh Singh, Advocate Mr. C.K. Jain, Advocate Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Bajrang Kumar, A.C. to ASGI Oral Order 08/ Dated :05.07.2022 1. The anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner- Prabhu Dayal Randar @ Prabhu Dayal Randher @ Prabhu Dayal Randhar, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with CBI/AC-I, New Delhi P.S. Case No.R.C. AC1 2018 A 0007 [RC 07(A)/2018D] for the offence registered under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, XVIII-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi, is pressed into motion. After investigation charge sheet has been filed under Section 120 B of the IPC and Sections 7,8,11,12 & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Preventions of Corruption Act. 2. If CBI is believed, not only birds migrate from harsh climate zone to warmer one, but some tax payers also do so. Prosecution case is about transfer of 17 companies from Kolkata to Ranchi/Hazaribagh with migration of PAN, by manufacturing documents under a conspiracy with Principal Income Tax Commissioner, Ranchi Tapas Kumar Dutta, and Bishwanath Agarwal and Santosh Chowdhary @ Santosh Shah both Kolkata based business men and Entry Operators . The petitioner is the controller of one such Kites Infra Projects Pvt Ltd which was transferred from Kolkata to Ranchi. 3. The salient feature of the findings of the investigation is that the petitioner is the controller of one such company which under conspiracy got their companies transferred from Kolkata to Ranchi/Hazaribagh with anticipation of favorable orders under Section 264 of the IT Act and for reassessment favoring the assessee them. It had no business activity at Ranch and the transfer was with the sole object to gain undue advantage. The transcription of the conversation of 268 calls disclosed that a flat was purchased by a co-accused Bishwanath Agarwal for the co-accused Tapas Kumar Dutta from the funds received from the owners of the different assessee of the companies. The conspiracy resulted in huge financial loss to the State exchequer. The salient feature of the findings of the investigation is that these Companies were for name sake under the control of the dummy directors who were merely the front face of the Company and were only signing the documents as per instructions of the actual controllers. The actual beneficiaries were the controllers companies. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that gist of allegation against this petitioner is that he was controller of Kites Infra Projects Pvt. Limited which got its PAN of the company deliberately transferred from the jurisdiction Kolkata to Ranchi in a criminal conspiracy with the Income Tax Commissioner, Tapas Kumar Dutta in anticipation of gain an undue advantage rather for the assessment year 2012-13. It is submitted in this regard that entire records in the charge sheet will demonstrate that he is not beneficiary and there has not been any advantage or any unlawful gain to this petitioner on account of said transfer of the PAN from Kolkata to Ranchi. It is pointed out that the petitioner’s company was assessed on 30th March, 2015 on a total income of Rs.10,93,14,347/- as a result of which an additional demand of Rs.4,82,30,730/- was raised against the company purported to be controlled by this petitioner, which he is not and has not concern with it. In the assessment order, A.O. made additional demand of Rs.10,93,00,000/- under Section 68 of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained share capital and share premium raised during the financial year 2011-12. Penalty proceeding under Section 27(1)(c) was separately initiated by the A.O. Consequent upon, transfer of assessee’s case to Ranchi, the assessee-company filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the I.T. Act on 31.03.2016 which was allowed on 23.03.2017. In the operative part of this order, at para 6, it will show de novo enquiry was ordered for assessment. On re- assessment on 29.12.2017 (Annexure-11), this assessee was assessed to after de- novo assessment at page 65 Rs.10,93,00,000/- was treated unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By citing this figure, it is argued that this petitioner did not gain any unlawful gain or caused unlawful loss to the public exchequer so as to make the offence and the demand on the basis of re-assessment was of Rs.4,82,30,730/-. Further the main case i.e. R.C.03(A)17D dated 10.07.2017 proceeding before Special Judge, C.B.I., has been stayed by Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Special Leave Appeal (Cr.) No.2430 of 2022 on 29th April, 2022. Since the investigation has been concluded there is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by the learned ASGI on behalf of C.B.I. that main charge against the petitioner is of conspiracy for which mere agreement to commit an offence shall amount to criminal conspiracy which is a substantive offence. During investigation sufficient materials have been brought on record with regard to the manufacturing of forged documents to facilitate the transfer of the company from Kolkata to Ranchi. With regard to the actual wrongful loss causes no satisfactory answer has been given but it is submitted that these matters can be looked at the stage of trial. Lastly it is argued that there is interest and penalty component of the assessment amount which cannot be overlooked. It has been held in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. Considering the rival submissions, gravity of offence and direct allegation against this petitioner I am not inclined to allow the anticipatory bail application which is accordingly rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender within four weeks. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit "