Sunil Kumar Agrawal and Vimal Agrawal and Vinod Agrawal V. Union of India Through Enforcement Directorate

MCRCA/1434/2024

AI Insights

The case involves allegations against Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Vimal Agrawal, and Vinod Agrawal, who were accused of facilitating money laundering activities by opening benami bank accounts and channelizing funds through shell companies. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an ECIR against them following a significant seizure of cash and assets during an Income Tax raid on another accused, Babulal Agrawal. The applicants argued that they were falsely implicated, highlighting that they had never been arrested during the investigation and that similar co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail. The ED opposed the bail, citing the serious nature of economic offenses and the applicants' alleged non-cooperation with the investigation. The court, considering the precedents and the specific circumstances of the case, decided to grant anticipatory bail.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800263 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, Pankaj Grover vs. ED, Directorate of Enforcement vs. M. Gopal Reddy and Another, Rana Kapoor vs. Directorate of Enforcement
• Laws Referred To: Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH PANDE
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAGALBHA SHARMA
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Benami accounts; ECIR; FEMA; Forgery; Money laundering; PMLA; Shell companies
• Section: 3; 4; 45; 482; 170

Judgement Text

"1 2025:CGHC:2668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1434 of 2024 1 - Sunil Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Premchand Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o M-52, Rajeev Nagar, P.S.-Khamhardiah, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vimal Agrawal S/o Shri Vishwanath Agrawal Aged About 37 Years R/o M-52, Rajeev Nagar, P.S. - Khamhardiah, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vinod Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ridhan Lal Agrawal Aged About 64 Years R/o Behind Mahaveer School, Gudiyari, P.S. - Gudiyari, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Applicants(s) Versus Union of India Through Enforcement Directorate, Through Investigating Officer, Enforcement Directorate (FEMA/PMLA), Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicants For Applicants : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Non-applicants : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.01.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending their arrest in connection with Special Criminal Case Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 No.04/2023 pending before the Special Judge, (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act/IV th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in relation to Crime No.ECIR/01/NGR/2011 dated 10.01.2011 renumbered as ECIR/RPSZO/05/2013 and its subsequent addendum dated 10.02.2020, registered by Enforcement Directorate, Sub-Zonal Office-Nagpur for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘the PMLA Act’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Income Tax sleuths conducted a search at the premises of Babulal Agrawal on 04.02.2010, which resulted in the seizure of cash amount of Rs. 68.10 lakhs and jewellery worth Rs. 70.20 lakhs and other assets worth Rs. 12.50 crores. A search was also conducted at the premises of co-accused Sunil Kumar Agrawal, C.A. of Babulal Agrawal where 230 bank passbooks were recovered. It is further alleged that Sunil Kumar Agrawal opened a bank account in the name of the villagers by using documents given by the villagers and forging their signatures. The money deposited in such bank accounts was channelized as share capital in M/s. Prime Ispat Limited through shell companies. 3. The allegation against the present applicant No.1 is that he was working with the main accused Babulal Agrawal as a Chartered 3 Accountant (CA) from the year 2004-2005 to 2009-2010 and under the instructions of accused Pawan Agrawal and Alok Agrawal, he opened benami bank accounts of persons who were residents of Kharora, Motimpurakala, Chingariya and Madhepur and nearby villages. As far as applicants No.2 & 3 are concerned, they are relatives of applicant No.1. They assisted applicant No.1 in obtaining identity cards of the villagers for opening of about 446 bank accounts, etc. and also extended help to the co-accused persons for transferring the money in M/s. Prime Ispat Ltd. Co. and other shell companies. Further, they were one of the Directors of the shell companies who acted as mediators; thus, they are roped in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present applicants have falsely been implicated in this matter. He further submitted that during the investigation, the applicants have never been arrested; and, the charge sheet has already been filed. He contended that the adjudicating authority has exonerated the main accused saying that there are no proceeds of crime generated in this matter. He further contended that on a similar subject matter, another ECIR has been registered, in which, anticipatory bail was granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, co-accused Sangeeta Agrawal and Mamta Agrawal were granted anticipatory 4 bail by this Court in MCRCA Nos. 1162 of 2023 and 1309 of 2023 on 04.10.2023 and 10.04.2024, respectively. He also argued that in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 43 held that in a case where the prosecution does not require custody of the accused, there is no need for arrest when a case is sent to the magistrate under Section 170 of the Code. It is also observed that there is no need for filing a bail application as the case is merely forwarded to the court for the framing of charges and issuance of process for trial. 5. He further argued that in the present case, the FIR was registered on 19.02.2010 and during these long 11 years, the applicants were never directed to appear before the investigating agency, therefore at this stage, it would not be appropriate to direct them to surrender. He also stated that in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorized the offences into four categories i.e. A, B, C & D. Category C deals with the offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail such as PMLA, NDPS etc. 6. He also argued that one more ECIR was registered against other co-accused persons. The anticipatory bail of those persons was 5 rejected by the learned Sessions Court and thereafter, by this Court. Ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No.2106 of 2022 was kind enough to grant anticipatory bail to Pawan Kumar Agrawal and Ashok Kumar Agrawal. He further stated that in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the accused persons, namely, Vimal Agrawal and Vinod Agrawal have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1455 of 2021 vide order dated 09.02.2023. He lastly contended that though different ECIRs were registered by the respondent, the sum and substance of the allegations are similar and thus, he would pray to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the applicants. He submitted that applicant No.1 was working with Babulal Agrawal as CA and applicants No.2 & 3 assisted applicant No.1, and provided support to the main accused Babulal Agrawal who played an active role in committing the crime of money laundering by earning the proceeds of crime. He further submitted that according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the accused should cooperate in the investigation and a person who has not been arrested may take the benefit of Satender Kumar Antil’s judgment. He also 6 contended that in the present case, the applicants are not co- operating with the investigating agency. He further argued that the applicants have to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA Act. His next contention is that Economic Offences constitute a separate class and anticipatory bail should not ordinarily be granted in such offences. 8. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 and the judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Pankaj Grover vs. ED, Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 7661 of 2020. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of the Directorate of Enforcement vs. M. Gopal Reddy and Another, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 138 wherein it is held that in the case of Money Laundering offences, the preconditions of Section 45 of PMLA Act have to be satisfied for anticipatory bail. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and perused the documents present on the record. 10.From a perusal of the documents, it appears that a search was 7 conducted by the Income-Tax Department on 04.02.2010 and 05.02.2010 in the premises of Babulal Agrawal, Sunil Kumar Agrawal (CA) and other relatives and 230 passbooks of different persons were recovered. On 19.02.2010, the Economic Offence Wing, Raipur registered an FIR bearing No. 6 of 2010 under Sections 13(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 3 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. On 10.01.2011, ECIR/01/NGR/2011 was registered under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA Act 2002. On 14.05.2018, the main accused – Babulal Agrawal was exonerated on identical allegations by the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA on the ground that no case of money laundering had been made out against him based on the allegations imputed in the prosecution complaint filed by the investigating agency. The order of the Adjudicating Authority was challenged before the Appellate Authority. On 10.02.2020, the respondent registered an FIR against Babulal Agrawal in the addendum ECIR. On 04.01.2021 i.e. after 10 years, the respondent filed a prosecution complaint arraying the applicants as accused. The main accused, namely, Babulal Agrawal has been granted regular bail in MCRC No. 78 of 2021 vide order dated 10.02.2021 on the ground that he has been exonerated of the allegations by the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA. The order dated 10.02.2021 was challenged before the Hon’ble 8 Supreme Court by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 5661 of 2021 by the respondent and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2021. 11.Section 45 of the PMLA Act says as under:- 45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.— “(1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence [under this Act] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--] (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given a opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm,[or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money- laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees] may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs: Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by-- (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government. [(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.] (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in sub- 9 section (1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. [Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that the expression \"Offences to be cognizable and non- bailable\" shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), and accordingly the officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfillment of conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this section.]” 12.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Siddharth vs. State of U.P. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615 in paragraphs 9 & 12 held as under:- “9. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of the High Courts and would like to give our imprimatur to the said judicial view. It has rightly been observed on consideration of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. that it does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the charge- sheet. We have, in fact, come across cases where the accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout and yet on the charge-sheet being filed non-bailable warrants have been issued for his production premised on the requirement that there is an obligation to arrest the accused and produce him before the court. We are of the view that if the Investigating Officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody. The word “custody” appearing in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate either police or judicial custody but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused by the Investigating Officer before the court while filing the charge-sheet. 12. In the present case when the appellant has joined the 10 investigation, investigation has completed and he has been roped in after seven 4 Joginder Kumar v. State of UP & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 260 years of registration of the FIR we can think of no reason why at this stage he must be arrested before the chargesheet is taken on record. We may note that learned counsel for the appellant has already stated before us that on summons being issued the appellant will put the appearance before the trial court.” In Pankaj Grover (supra), the High Court of Allahabad in para 38, 40 & 42 held as under:- “38. Change in society has caused complete change in nature, cause, mode, rate and impact of crime on individual member of the society and society at large. Further, all and every stereotype of crime and criminals have completely changed and it is causing greater problem to criminal justice. Previously crimes were committed by un-socialised or mal-socialised or improperly socialised persons for whom all traditional criminologists have been of opinion that they belong to lower class, such criminals were committing crime in unorganised manner without proper planning or completely in un-planned manner by using crude modus operandi leaving clues on crime scene, traditional evidences were available particularly eye witnesses, crimes were committed to satisfy need and necessity or enmity or jealousy or lust. To deal such crimes simple and general measures of criminal justice was efficient. Simple investigating agency and its investigation procedure; traditional prosecution and prosecution measures were effective, traditional sentencing and its infliction was sufficient to tackle problem of traditional criminality. Crimes are now committed by influential persons belonging to upper class in organised manner after well planning by use of modern gadgets in course of performance of their official, professional, business activities in which they have expertise. Criminal acts committed by professionals, businessmen and public servants, it is very difficult to identify whether sober and civilised activity was committed or criminal act was committed. Such criminals have no criminal self image, further by societal members there is no labelling which 11 affect seriously pursuits to cope with crime and criminality. Economic offenders are only concerned with their personal gain even at the cost of irreparable and serious loss to society which provided socialization and made him a human being, provided status and position, provided respect and reputation, provided stature and means. 40. To gain more and more profit, to become rich quick such criminal even has no problem to cause problem for the whole society, affect safety and security of life of societal members, misappropriation of public exchequer and ultimately affect completely wellbeing of society at large. In the way to accumulate money and to get physical commodities, life, property and well-being of common persons have no value. Criminal acts committed by such persons are creating a serious challenge before criminal justice system; It is difficult to identify whether crime was committed, when it is identified that crime was committed, it is difficult to find out clues and thereby evidences; when evidences are available, nature of evidences is completely different as not possible to be collected by simple investigating, presented by prosecution agency and ultimately to convict and sentence; when sentenced, simple sentence is not effective to deal with such modern criminals and their criminality. A criminal of such modern criminality are respected and influential persons with position, status, standing and means thereby they are always in situation to influence proceeding in investigation and prosecution, tamper with the evidences and pressurise witnesses. 42. In socio-economic offences proceed of crimes are larger and further, offenders are economically sound, therefore, in releasing them on bail/anticipatory bail probability of abscondance not within country but beyond country is more probable. Usually socio-economic offenders abscond to some other country and after that it becomes difficult to bring them back and complete the criminal proceeding against them. Further, their monetary sound condition particularly proceed of crime obtained not by honest working but by deceiving others causes more prone situation for influencing witnesses and other evidences. Furthermore, status and position of offender provides opportunity to influence investigation and prosecution.” 12 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) in paras 43, 90, 100.5 & 100.6 held as under:- “43.The scope and ambit of Section 170 has already been dealt with by this Court in Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2021) 1 SCC 676. This is a power which is to be exercised by the court after the completion of the investigation by the agency concerned. Therefore, this is a procedural compliance from the point of view of the court alone, and thus the investigating agency has got a limited role to play. In a case where the prosecution does not require custody of the accused, there is no need for an arrest when a case is sent to the magistrate under Section 170 of the Code. There is not even a need for filing a bail application, as the accused is merely forwarded to the court for the framing of charges and issuance of process for trial. If the court is of the view that there is no need for any remand, then the court can fall back upon Section 88 of the Code and complete the formalities required to secure the presence of the accused for the commencement of the trial. Of course, there may be a situation where a remand may be required, it is only in such cases that the accused will have to be heard. Therefore, in such a situation, an opportunity will have to be given to the accused persons, if the court is of the prima facie view that the remand would be required. We make it clear that we have not said anything on the cases in which the accused persons are already in custody, for which, the bail application has to be decided on its own merits. ECONOMIC OFFENSES (CATEGORY D) 90.What is left for us now to discuss are the economic offences. The question for consideration is whether it should be treated as a class of its own or otherwise. This issue has already been dealt with by this Court in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, after taking note of the earlier decisions governing the field. The gravity of the offence, the object of the Special Act, and the attending circumstances are a few of the factors to be taken note of, along with the period of 13 sentence. After all, an economic offence cannot be classified as such, as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the court to categorise all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. Suffice it to state that law, as laid down in the following judgments, will govern the field:- 100.5. There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code. 100.6. There needs to be a strict compliance of the mandate laid down in the judgment of this court in Siddharth (supra).” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 in para 5 of the report observed thus:- “5. The trial Courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines while considering bail applications. The caveat which has been put by learned ASG is that where the accused have not cooperated in the investigation nor appeared before the Investigating Officers, nor answered summons when the Court feels that judicial custody of the accused is necessary for the completion of the trial, where further investigation including a possible recovery is needed, the aforesaid approach cannot give them benefit, something we agree with.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rana Kapoor vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4065 in paras 10, 11 & 12 held as under:- “10. The applicants is implicated in PMLA which was enacted to prevent money-laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money-laundering and for matters connected therewith or 14 incidental thereto. Section 45 provides that offences punishable under PMLA are cognizable and non-bailable also provides stringent conditions in grant of bail. It reads as under- 45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (i) The Public Prosecutor has been given a opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) Where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees] may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs. 10.1 As per Satinder Kumar Antil, Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (S.37), PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212(6), etc. fall in category C. The bail applications for offences falling in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:28.11.2022 BAIL APPLN. 559/2022 RANA KAPOOR V DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Page 26 11:59:21 Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005170 Category C are required to be decided on merit besides consideration of additional condition of compliance of the provisions of Bail under NDPS S.37, 45 PMLA, 212(6) Companies Act 43d(5) of UAPA, POSCO etc. 11. The applicants was not implicated in FIR bearing RC No.2232021A0005 registered by CBI. The applicants was implicated in present criminal complaint filed by the respondent/ED and arrayed as accused no 2. The investigating officer consciously did not arrest the applicants. The applicants participated in investigation as his three statements under section 50 PMLA were recorded. The respondent also did not allege that the applicants neither participated nor cooperated in investigation. The 15 concerned Special Court after taking cognizance on present criminal complaint ordered for summoning of the accused persons including the applicants. The investigating officer even after filing of present complaint did not apply for custody of the applicants. The co-accused Gautam Thapar was arrested consciously by the investigating officer during investigation and was denied bail by the Special Court and High Court and as such the applicants is standing on different footing from co-accused Gautam Thapar. The applicants was taken into custody due to dismissal of bail application vide order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the court of Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)-02 Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi. The applicants primarily not seeking bail on merit but on basis of observation made by the Supreme Court in para no 65 of Satinder Kumar Antil decision and as such applicants is not required to pass the test of section 45 PMLA. The conditions as per section 45 PMLA would be applicable, had the applicants filed an application either under section 439 of the Code after arrest during investigation or under section 438 of the Code apprehending his arrest during investigation. As mentioned in present criminal complaint filed by the respondent, the applicants was not arrested during investigation by the investigating agency. There is legal force in argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel of the applicants that applicants is entitled to bail in view of observations/legal proposition as laid down by the Supreme Court in Satinder Kumar Antil. It is not mandate of section 170 of the Code that if the accused is not taken into custody or arrested during investigation can be arrested or taken into custody after appearance in court post summoning order particularly when neither investigation agency nor prosecution agency sought arrest of accused. 12. The arguments advanced by the learned Special Counsel for the respondent that the applicants has misinterpreted para no 65 of Satinder Kumar Antil is misplaced. There is no force in argument advanced by the learned Special Counsel for the respondent that the applicants before grant of bail required to pass test of 45 of PMLA. The position would have been different, had the applicants arrested during investigation. The investigating agency as mentioned hereinabove consciously preferred not to arrest the applicants during investigation or post filing of 16 charge sheet. The arguments advanced and case law relied on by the Special Counsel for the respondent are considered in right perspective to the given facts and circumstances but they do not provide much legal help to the respondent in opposing present bail application.” 13. It is not in dispute that the FIR was registered on 19.02.2010 whereas the respondent filed a complaint arraying the applicants as accused in ECIR on 04.01.2021 i.e. after 11 years. The judgments relied on by learned counsel for the respondent state that the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA Act are to be satisfied but at the same time, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) cannot be lost sight of and other co-accused persons against whom similar allegations were levelled, have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this Court, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the present is a fit case to extend the benefit under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to the applicants. 14.Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the aforesaid offence, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and they shall abide by the 17 following conditions:- (i) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court, (ii) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (iii) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial, (iv) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of a similar nature in future. The observations made in the course of this order are only for considering the case of the applicants on the application for the grant of anticipatory bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by any observations made hereinabove. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim "