KABC010082422024 IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (PRINCIPAL SPECIAL COURT FOR CBI CASES), (CCH-04) BENGALURU DATED : 18th day of May, 2024 PRESENT: Sri Gangadhara C.M., B.Com.,LL.B., Concurrent charge of XXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases), (CCH-04) Bengaluru. Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024 Petitioner : Ms. Shalini Jatwal, D/o Sri Jai Bhagwan Jatwal, Aged about 38 years, Addl. Director at Cloud Atlas Future Technology Private Limited, (Resigned from Directorship on 18.12.2020) Registered Office at 12th and 14th Floor, Building No.9, Tower B Phase-III, DLF Cyber City, Gurugram, Haryana – 122 002. (By : Sri S.K. Ravi, Advocate) Vs. Respondent : The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India. (By : Learned Senior Public Prosecutor) ORDERS The petitioner – Ms. Shalini Jatwal has filed the present bail petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 70, 4 and Section 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘PML Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024 Act’) in respect of the case registered in Spl.C.C.No.623/2023 before this Court.

2. The petitioner, in her bail petition, has stated the facts of

the case in brief and specifically pleaded that she was working as HR Manager at Sarvayoni Adyah Property Services Private Limited, which was subsequently renamed as Repegon Technology Private Ltd. Further, it was renamed as Concurrent Economy Private Ltd. She has further pleaded that in the month of May, 2020, Ms. Ru Zhonzhi approached and informed her that companies were being forming namely M/s Vedaltas Technology Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd., and offered her to become director of the said companies for short duration citing that her documents were not ready. Consequently, she was appointed as Additional Director of M/s Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd., on 22.08.2020. The said Ms. Ru Zhonzhi informed the petitioner that the said company is not operational and there are some future plans.

3. She has further pleaded that on 18.12.2020, she came

to know that the company wherein she was made Additional Director i.e., M/s Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd and Vedaltas Technology were not doing statutory compliance. Therefore, she tendered her resignation form as a Director to Ms. Ru Zhonzhi and other concerned persons stating that she is not willing to continue as Additional Director of the said companies. She forwarded her resignation mail again to Ms. Ru Zhonzhi and other directors on 02.01.2021. Since her name was not removed from the master data of the Registrar of Companies on the MCA Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024 Website, she again on 28.05.2021 sent an email to the concerned persons and also to the Registrar of Companies, Delhi.

4. She has further pleaded that she was only an employee

of Concurrent Economy Private Limited for which she was drawing salary on the monthly basis and she resigned from Concurrent Economy Pvt. Ltd., on 31.12.2020. She has further pleaded that upon registration of FIR, an order dated 02.12.2022 was issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and was served upon her whereby she was directed to appear before the Economic Offence Wing, Criminal Investigation Department. Consequently, she appeared before the office of Economic Offence Wing, Criminal Investigation Department and her statement was recorded. She was not arrested by the concerned officer and thereafter, she was never asked to join the investigation.

5. She has further pleaded that summons dated

08.02.2021 was issued to the registered address of the company M/s Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt Ltd and not to her. As she resigned from the Additional Directorship of the company within a span of less than four months when she came to know that the company was unwilling to do the compliance as was needed under the Companies Act and other laws. Her personal details were available with the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and the office of Economic Offence Wing, Criminal Investigation Department was aware of her residential address and she had duly appeared before them when she was summoned earlier. If she had knowledge about the investigation being carried out, she would have appeared before the officers of Directorate of Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024 Enforcement.

6. She has further pleaded that one of the accused in

Spl.C.C.No.623/2023, Ms. Vidyawati Dhami (accused No.1) in that case was one of the directors of M/s Mad Elephant Network Technologies Pvt. Ltd., who has been charged of the same offence and was not arrested during the investigation. Accused No.12 in the said case was also not arrested during the investigation. Therefore, they cannot be further arrested as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. No prima facie case is made out against her. She was merely an employee at Concurrent Economy Private Ltd. and upon the direction of her employer, she became additional director for a short period. She was not even involved in the day to day business of M/s. Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd. There is no allegation that she was involved in acquiring, layering and siphoning off the proceeds of crime. There is no whisper in the entire complaint about the role of M/s Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd. There is no single piece of evidence which states that she was part of the syndicate, who was firstly sending messages for installing the applications and thereafter, making threatening calls to the victims and forwarding morphed photographs to the victims and relatives with the motive to blackmail them. She has further pleaded that she is a single lady having roots in the society and is living with her parents. She is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court, she will co-operate with the investigation and she is ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this Court. Hence, she has prayed to allow the bail petition. Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024

7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the

bail petition by filing his objections. He has stated the facts of the case in brief and specifically contended that the complainant filed a detailed complaint before this Court. Based on the same, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence. The complaint and its enclosures clearly indicate a prima facie case that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 3 r/w Section 4 of PML Act. Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances and only upon well founded apprehension of arrest in a non-bailable case. When the case is numbered as Special Case and summons has been issued, instead of appearing before the concerned Court and seeking the bail, the petitioner has rushed before this Court and sought the relief of anticipatory bail, which is not maintainable. There is no apprehension of arrest by the respondent and thus, the petition is devoid of merits. Hence, he has prayed to reject the bail petition.

8. This Court has heard the arguments of the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that his arguments may be taken as heard.

9. The points that arise for court consideration are as

follows :- 1) Whether the petitioner has made out grounds to exercise discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and to enlarge her on anticipatory bail? 2) What order? Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024

10. Findings of this Court to the above points are as

follows :- Point No.1 : In the affirmative; Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following :- R E A S O N S

11. Point No.1 :- It is the case of the prosecution that the

DGP, CID, Special Units and Economic Offences, Bengaluru sent a letter dated 30.12.2020 along with FIR Nos.18/2020 and 19/2020, dated 21.12.2020 and 22.12.2020 respectively registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, CID, Bengaluru to the office of the Enforcement Directorate, Bengaluru. As per the said letter, the Enforcement Directorate was informed that initially a complaint was registered by Ms. Pavitra M., alleging that she was subjected to harassment by the collection agents of the loan App with all type of abuse, sexual overtones, circulating her images over whatsapp groups tagging her as “Chor”. On 23.07.2020, she installed an App called Kisshit App on her phone and raised loan of Rs.4,503/- after granting all the permission to the App and updating her details like PAN, Aadhar and Bank accounts. In order to repay the said loan, she also installed similar Apps viz., My Bank, Money Box, Loan Gram, Coco Cash, Panda Rupee, Cashpot, Need Rupee to raise loan. Despite repaying the loan amount, she was being harassed by unknown persons representing the Apps. Similar complaint was also received by Ms. Vinditha who has taken loan from similar apps. As per the report, the loan Apps were deducting exorbitant charges from the loan amount upfront and charged an interest at 36% per annum on the loan amount. Consequently, ECIR bearing No.BGZO/03/2021 was Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024 recorded on the basis of the letter dated 30.12.2020 received from DGP, CID, Special Units and Economic Offences, Bengaluru as the offences registered for the offences under section 384, 385, 419 and 420 of IPC in FIR Nos.18/2020 and 19/2020 are scheduled offences under the PML Act.

12. It is further case of the prosecution that some of the

applications, which disbursed loan, were registered in the name of M/s. Mad Elephant Network Technology Pvt. Limited (accused No.1). M/s. X10 Financial Services Limited (Accused No.2) a Non- Banking Financial Company (NBFC) has an agreement with M/s. Mad Elephant Network Technology Private Limited for taking services of its money lending platforms. The employees of M/s. Baryonyx Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (accused No.3) has called the complainant over mobile phone and has harassed her to make repayment. Similarly, M/s. Track Fined Private Limited (accused No.4), which is also a Non-Banking Financial Company, has assisted M/s. Baryonyx Technologies Pvt. Ltd. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the documents submitted by M/s. Razorpay Software Pvt. Ltd., (accused No.7) revealed that M/s. Jamnadas Morarjee Finance Pvt. Ltd., (accused No.5) was also in money lending business which was done with the platform provided by M/s Razorpay Software Pvt. Ltd. (accused No.7). M/s. Jamnadas Morarjee Finance Pvt. Ltd. (accused No.5) has entered into an agreement with M/s. Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd. (accused No.6) and the same might have been used by them to open an account with M/s Razorpay Software Pvt. Ltd. It is added that three persons namely Rahul Chander, Vikram and Tanuj (accused Nos.8, 9 and 10) opened the account on behalf of Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024 M/s. Jamnadas Morarjee Finance Pvt. Ltd., with M/s. Razorpay Software Pvt. Ltd., with the help of fake and forged documents. Later on, M/s. Razorpay Software Pvt. Ltd., has registered an FIR bearing No.33/2022 dated 15.02.2022 against Rahul Chander, Vikram and Tanuj which was later transferred to CID, Special Units and Economic Offences, Bengaluru.

13. It is further alleged by the prosecution that summons

under Section 50 of PML Act was issued to M/s. Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd. (accused No.6), but the same was returned undelivered with the remark ‘Left Premises’. During the investigation, the statements of several persons were recorded and after completion of the investigation, a complaint under Section 44 of PML Act was filed. Thereafter, this Court, vide an order dated 16.03.2023, has taken the cognizance of the offences under Sections 3 and 70 punishable under Section 4 of PML Act and issued summons to the accused. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court for seeking anticipatory bail.

14. A perusal of the records, though the petitioner is not an

accused in the complaint filed by the complainant, she has filed the present petition for seeking anticipatory bail on the apprehension that she might be arrested by the complainant for the offence punishable under section 4 of PML Act. It is settled proposition of law that discretion conferred under section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised in exceptional circumstances and only upon well founded apprehension of arrest in a non-bailable case. Keeping in mind the said proposition of law, this court proceeds to examine whether there is a well founded apprehension of arrest of the petitioner in a non-bailable case. Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024

15. The complainant has filed the complaint against the

accused persons that they have committed the offence punishable under section 4 of PML Act which is a non-bailable offence. A perusal of the complaint, the complainant has alleged that M/s. Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd., (accused No.6) represented by its directors Shalini Jatwal i.e., the petitioner and Ameer Hamja is involved in fabricating documents and illegal harassment of the common public by extorting money from them in the name of micro loans given and collected through various loan apps in connivance with accused Nos.7 to 10. The said allegations clearly indicate that the petitioner is also involved in commission of the offence under section 4 of PML Act. Even the learned Special Public Prosecutor has also contended in his objections that the materials collected by the complainant prima facie indicate that the petitioner has committed the offence under section 4 of PML Act. It appears from the records that the complainant has made the directors of the companies like the petitioner, who participated in the investigation, as accused in the complaint. It is mentioned in the complaint that summons under Section 50 of PML Act was issued to M/s. Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd. (accused No.6), but the same was returned undelivered with the remark ‘Left Premises’ and further investigation is pending in the said case. Since the petitioner was the director of M/s Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd., and she did not appear before the complainant, the petitioner might be arrested during the further investigation. In a recent decision in Tarsem Lal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office, Criminal Appeal No.2608/2024, decided on 16.05.2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at para 23(j) as follows; Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024 “23(j). If the ED wants custody of the accused who appears after service of summons for conducting further investigation in the same offence, the ED will have to seek custody of the accused by applying to the Special Court. After hearing the accused, the Special Court must pass an order on the application by recording brief reasons. While hearing such an application, the Court may permit custody only if it is satisfied that custodial interrogation at that stage is required, even though the accused was never arrested under Section 19. However, when the ED wants to conduct a further investigation concerning the same offence, it may arrest a person not shown as an accused in the complaint already filed under Section 44(1)(b), provided the requirements of Section19 are fulfilled.” (emphasis added)

16. As per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision,

when the ED wants to conduct further investigation concerning the same offence, it may arrest a person not shown as an accused in the complaint already filed under section 44(1)(b) of the Act if the requirements of Section 19 are fulfilled. In this case, further investigation concerning the same offence is still under progress. The petitioner is not shown as accused in the complaint, but it is alleged that she is involved in the alleged crime. Further, it is alleged that nobody appeared on behalf of M/s. Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd., and co-operated with the investigation. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner cannot be ruled out at this stage and the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable.

17. In order to grant bail to an accused under PML Act,

such accused has to satisfy that there is a reasonable ground to believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail as per Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024 section 45 of the Act for his entitlement for bail. Keeping in mind the aforesaid statutory provision, this court has taken the facts of this case for discussion.

18. It is the specific allegation of the prosecution against

accused No.6 that it appears to be a company controlled by Chinese Nationals. M/s. Jamnadas Morarjee Finance Pvt. Ltd. (accused No.5) entered into an agreement with M/s. Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd., (accused No.6) and gave its documents to M/s. Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd. The said documents might have been misused by accused No.6 to open an account in its name with M/s Razorpay Software Pvt. Ltd., and undertook money lending business through money lending App “Rupee Plus” which is run by M/s. Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd. The said company represented by its directors Shalini Jatwal i.e., the petitioner and Ameer Hamja is involved in fabricating documents and illegal harassment of the common public by extorting money from them in the name of micro loans given and collected through various loan Apps in connivance with accused Nos.7 to 10.

19. Per contra, the petitioner has contended that she was

working as HR Manager of Concurrent Economy Private Limited and she resigned from her job on 31.12.2020. She has further contended that she was an additional director of M/s. Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd., at the request of Ms. Ru Zhonzhi and she tendered her resignation form as a Director to Ms. Ru Zhonzhi and other concerned persons stating that she is not willing to continue as Additional Director of the said company on 18.12.2020 as the said company was not doing statutory Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024 compliance. Further, she forwarded her resignation mail again to Ms. Ru Zhonzhi and other directors on 02.01.2021. Since her name was not removed from the Master data of the Registrar of Companies on the MCA website, she again on 28.05.2021 sent an email to the concerned persons and also to the Registrar of Companies, Delhi. She is never involved in the day-to-day business of M/s. Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd., and she was not involved in acquiring, layering and siphoning off the proceeds of crime.

20. It appears from the records that FIR No.18/2020 and FIR

No.19/2020 were registered by Cyber Crime Police Station on 21.12.2020 and 22.12.2020 respectively. The petitioner has produced the document to show that she tendered her resignation form as a Director to Ms. Ru Zhonzhi and other concerned persons stating that she was not willing to continue as Additional Director of the said company on 18.12.2020 before registration of the said cases. Subsequently, she sent an email to Ms. Ru Zhonzhi and other concerned persons resigning from her directorship on 02.01.2021 and again sent an email to Ms. Ru Zhonzhi and other concerned persons and the Registrar of Companies on 28.05.2021 as her name was not removed from the Master data of the Registrar of Companies on the MCA website. She has specifically contended that she resigned from her directorship of the said company as the said company was not doing statutory compliance. It clearly indicates that the petitioner was not willing to continue as director of M/s. Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd., before setting the criminal law in motion. Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024

21. Further, it is contended in the complaint itself that M/s.

Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd., was controlled by Chinese Nationals. The petitioner has contended that she was an additional director of the said company and she is never involved in the day-to-day business of the said company. It is pertinent to note that the Managing Director of the company is responsible for the acts committed by the company as per the law. In this case, there are no materials before this Court to show that the petitioner was the Managing Director of the said company. There is no material on record to show the role played by the petitioner in the company. Hence, the petitioner has satisfied this court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that she is not guilty of the offence under section 4 of PML Act.

22. Further, it appears from the records that the complainant

has not issued summons to the petitioner to appear before him for the purpose of interrogation. Though the summons was issued to M/s. Cloud Atlas Future Technology Pvt. Ltd., it was returned undelivered. Since the petitioner resigned from her directorship, she was not available to receive the summons issued by the complainant. The petitioner has contended that she was called by the Economic Offence Wing, CID, Bengaluru and she appeared before the said authority and co-operated with the investigation. In support of the said contention, the petitioner has produced the notice sent by Economic Offence Wing, CID, Bengaluru dated 02.12.2022 and she has not been arrested by CID till date. It clearly indicates that she has co-operated with the investigation of the case registered by Economic Offence Wing, CID, Bengaluru. Moreover, accused No.11 is a woman. The prosecution has not Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024 placed any material before this court to show that there are bad antecedents against the petitioner and she is likely to commit any offence while on bail. Therefore, the petitioner has satisfied the twin conditions set out in Section 45 of PML Act for her entitlement on bail.

23. The petitioner has contended that she has permanent

abode, having deep roots in the society and ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. The prosecution has not disputed the said facts. In the opinion of the Court, the presence of the petitioner can be secured before the complainant and before this court for the purpose of investigation and trial respectively by imposing some reasonable conditions. Hence, this is a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this Court has answered point No.1 in the affirmative.

24. Point No.2 :- In view of the discussions made supra, this

Court proceeds to pass the following :-

ORDER

The bail petition filed by the petitioner – Ms. Shalini Jatwal under section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Bengaluru is hereby directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in respect of Spl.C.No.623/2023 registered by this court for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2022, on personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer with the following ; Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024 CONDITIONS

1. The petitioner shall appear before this Court on all dates of hearing without fail unless her presence is dispensed with by this Court.

2. The petitioner shall appear before the complainant as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

3. The petitioner 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

4. The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of this court.

5. In case of change of her residential address, the petitioner shall inform the same to the complainant.

6. In the event of the petitioner violating any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcription thereof computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 18th day of May, 2024) (GANGADHARA C.M.), Concurrent charge of XXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases), (CCH-04) Bengaluru. Crl.Misc.No.2922/2024 *HRN/-