Ramesh Mehan vs. Assistant Directior Directorate Of Enforcement

Held

The Court made the order admitting the petitioner to interim bail absolute. The reasoning was based on the affidavit filed by the Assistant Director of the Directorate of Enforcement, dated 13.12.2021. Paragraph 3 of this affidavit stated that the petitioner had joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation was not required. While paragraph 4 mentioned that the petitioner had previously avoided joining proceedings, the primary factor for making the interim bail absolute was the respondent's assertion that custodial interrogation was not necessary. The Court explicitly stated that it was making no comment on the actual merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that in anticipatory bail proceedings, if the investigating agency states that custodial interrogation is not required and the petitioner has joined the investigation, the interim bail can be made absolute without delving into the merits of the allegations.

Facts

The petitioner, Ramesh Mehan, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in relation to Complaint no.ECIR/09/JIZO/2013, stemming from FIR no.221 of 14.11.2013. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner's firm had supplied goods to M/s Jal Dhara Exports and claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for this supply. The petitioner argued that it was not his fault if M/s Jal Dhara Exports did not actually export the goods but still claimed ITC. The Directorate of Enforcement was asked to respond to this specific query regarding the petitioner's mens rea. The petitioner, aged 78, was granted interim bail, which was later made absolute.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be attributed any mens rea concerning the claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by M/s Jal Dhara Exports, as per Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that his firm had supplied goods and claimed ITC, and it was not his fault if the recipient firm, M/s Jal Dhara Exports, failed to make actual exports and still claimed ITC. He asserted a lack of personal culpability for the actions of the other party. Respondent's (Directorate of Enforcement) Contention: The respondent sought time to take instructions and refer to the charge-sheet. Later, an affidavit was filed stating that the petitioner's custodial interrogation was not required, although it was noted that he had previously avoided joining proceedings. No specific argument regarding mens rea was detailed in the judgment, beyond the need for the petitioner to join investigation.