Mumbai: The special PMLA court has rejected the bail plea of Income Tax officer Tanaji Adhikari and his close associate Bhushan Patil, who were booked in connection with a Rs 263 crore TDS refund fraud.
Adhikari sought bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration, arguing that the alleged proceeds of the crime he utilised amounted to Rs 47.42 lakh – less than Rs1 crore – therefore not meeting the threshold for the applicability of the PMLA, 2002. It was alleged that the predicate offence is still at Delhi and the jurisdiction of the same is yet to be decided. Until it is decided, the proceedings for trial in the money laundering case cannot proceed.
The ED prosecutor Sunil Gonsalves contested the pleas claiming that there is no definition of long incarceration but it has to be seen in terms of one-half of the maximum punishment. The special judge AC Daga while rejecting his plea observed that provisions of PMLA are applicable to the case.
Observation Made By The Court
“The proceeds of crime is not only the amount which is used by the accused but also what he has generated. It appears that it is the applicant/accused who has generated a TDS refund amount of more than Rs 263 crore from the Income Tax Department and siphoned off the same by crediting it in the bank account of M/s SB Enterprises,” the court said.
Besides the court said, “More serious act of the accused is that while he being in judicial custody, he had written a note which has been recovered from the house of accused during search, as that note was handed over to one Rajesh Shantaram Shetty asking him to take steps, contact various persons and to take action regarding fixing all the involved officers.”
“This note which was found from the house of the accused prima facie reflects the mentality of the applicant/accused that if he is released on bail, he will try to influence the witnesses, will try to tamper with the evidence, and on this count itself, the applicant/accused is not entitled to being released on bail,” the court said.
Patil on the other hand alleged that he was not provided with grounds of arrest before his arrest in compliance of the law and no such document is forming part of the Court record. The court rejected his contention and held that there was no infirmity in the grounds of arrest.
