The bench comprising Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Satish C. Sharma is hearing an Enforcement Directorate (ED) plea challenging the bail granted to Dillip Kumar Ghosh by the Jharkhand High Court.
![[Breaking]Jharkhand Land Scam Case: "Listed for Tomorrow" SC Continues Hearing ED's Plea Challenging HC's Order Granting Bail to Dilip Ghosh](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-2024-08-29T120607.630.png?resize=820%2C630&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: Today(29th Aug) In a land scam case, the Enforcement of Directorate (ED) has challenged the Jharkhand High Court’s order granting bail to Dilip Ghosh, who is accused in a Ranchi land scam case, before the Supreme Court.
READ ALSO; ‘Rs 600 Crore Land Scam’: ED’s Chargesheet Against Hemant Soren
The bench comprising Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Satish C. Sharma is hearing an Enforcement Directorate (ED) plea challenging the bail granted to Dillip Kumar Ghosh by the Jharkhand High Court.
According to the investigating agency, Kolkata-based Ghosh, who serves as the Director of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Private Limited, purchased 4.55 acres of land on Bariatu Road in Ranchi for Rs 7 crore, significantly undervaluing the property, which was actually worth Rs 20 crore.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) stated that the property’s possession was reportedly involved in ongoing litigation with the Indian Army.
The accused contended that he was not provided with written grounds for his arrest, arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Pankaj Bansal case should therefore be applicable.
In the Pankaj Bansal case, the Supreme Court held that Section 19 of the PMLA mandates that the grounds for arrest must be provided in writing.
Earlier, the High Court determined that while the directions in Pankaj Bansal may be intended for future cases, they should not be interpreted as inapplicable to cases where arrests have been made without the service of written grounds.
The High Court ordered that the accused be granted bail. It also noted in its order that the ED’s allegations provided “reason to suspect” the accused’s involvement in a larger conspiracy of money laundering and forgery of sale deeds, whereas Section 19 of the PMLA requires a “reason to believe.”
The bail was originally granted based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Pankaj Bansal case, a point highlighted by Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, representing Ghosh.
Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu began his arguments by asserting that no offense under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) could be established against Ghosh, as there was no underlying predicate offense.
“Produce the bank statement of the accused for the relevant period by this evening. The case will be heard tomorrow (Friday),” instructed the bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma to senior advocate S. Nagamuthu, who represents Dilip Ghosh.
He contended that the Jharkhand High Court’s decision to grant bail was sound and in alignment with established legal precedents.
Nagamuthu emphasized that “no case under the PMLA is applicable, as there was no underlying predicate offense.”
READ ALSO: BREAKING | Hemant Soren Challenges ED Arrest, Seeks Interim Bail: SC Issues Notice
He also raised concerns about the fairness of the proceedings, stating,
“With due respect, the ASG was given two days to present their case, and I was not even allowed to finish my arguments yesterday. Now there seems to be an unexpected rush against me.”
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Raju, representing the ED, was questioned by the bench regarding the connection between Ghosh and the accused, Pradeep Bagchi.
The ASG stated, “He paid Rs 25 lakhs to Pradeep Bagchi.”
However, Justice Trivedi sought clarification on this connection, asking,
“But how does this constitute an offense?”
ASG Raju further mentioned discrepancies in the sale deed related to the land in question. He argued that while the sale deed totaled Rs 7 crore, none of the cheques mentioned in the deed were cashed.
Raju remarked,
“To evade this issue, they are now claiming that Rs 25 lakh was paid, although it was not. Despite the sale deed listing cheques for Rs 7 crore, none of these cheques were encashed. If there had been an agreement regarding the payment, the sale deed would reflect that.”
The bench questioned, “If payments were supposedly made by cheque, why does the sale deed state that these cheques were not encashed?”
When Nagamuthu tried to respond, the bench retorted,
“Do not present such superficial arguments here. We will not accept this.”
The bench expressed concerns about the clarity of the arguments presented by both sides.
Justice Trivedi, in particular, emphasized the need for substantiated claims, noting,
“This seems to be without any substantial basis. Was any order actually passed?”
She also expressed frustration with the proceedings, stating,
“You have been unable to explain this for the past two days.”
Justice Sharma also questioned the timing of the cheque clearance, asking,
“Can you tell me when the Rs 25 lakh cheque was cashed?”
Senior Advocate Nagamuthu initially provided a date in 2020 but later corrected himself, stating the cheque was actually cashed in July 2022.
Justice Trivedi urged Nagamuthu to verify the information, highlighting the importance of accuracy in legal proceedings:
“Please verify this information. It seems you are not certain about the date.”
As the session concluded, Justice Trivedi decided to adjourn the matter for the yesterday, stating,
“We were not clear on the matter yesterday, which is why we asked the ASG for additional time today. You may continue your arguments tomorrow.”
On June 7, 2023, the ED arrested businessman Amit Agrawal and Ghosh from Kolkata in connection with the land scam case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The money laundering case originated from an FIR filed by Jharkhand police on June 4, 2022, at Bariatu Police Station in Ranchi. The FIR, which alleges cheating under Section 420, forgery under Section 467, and using forged documents under Section 471 of the IPC, was based on a complaint by Dilip Sharma, a tax collector at the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. Sharma alleged that Pradeep Bagchi fraudulently obtained two holding numbers for land using forged documents and then sold the properties unlawfully.
