Ranjitsingh Dhanvindersingh Bindra v. Union of India

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Mr. Shirsat waives notice on behalf of respondent No.3-ED and Learned APP waives notice for respondent No.4– State.

N. S. Chitnis 2/7

3. By this petition, the petitioner essentially seeks quashing and setting aside of the Look Out Circular (‘LOC’) dated 1st October 2019, opened against the petitioner in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (‘PMLA’) Case, at the instance of the respondent No.3-ED. As far as other prayers are concerned, the same are not pressed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the LOC was issued by the ED on 1st October 2019 against the petitioner, however, there is nothing to show that the said LOC which was opened in October 2019 was reviewed periodically as mandated by the Ministry of Home Affairs i.e. Office Memorandum dated 22nd February 2021. He submits that even otherwise the petitioner was arrested in the PMLA case on 11th October 2019 and thereafter released on bail by the Special Court vide order dated 30th November

2019. He submits that one of the condition imposed on the petitioner in the said order, was that the ‘Applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior permission of this court.’ According to the learned

N. S. Chitnis 3/7 counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has travelled overseas, post grant of bail on almost 5 occasions and that the petitioner has complied with the terms and conditions stipulated in the said orders. He submits that the petitioner is a resident of Mumbai and as such has roots in the society and that the petitioner also has his businesses in India.

5. Mr. Shirsat has produced the LOC dated 1st October 2019 as well the office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 22nd February 2021.

6. Perused the papers. It appears that LOC was issued at the behest of ED against the petitioner on 1st October 2019. The reason for opening of the LOC as is reflected from clause – '11', is that the petitioner was an associate of Iqbal Mirchi and was suspected to be involved in the conspiracy to transfer the proceeds of crime to overseas. It is not in dispute that post the issuance of LOC, the petitioner was arrested by the respondent No.3-ED on 11th October

N. S. Chitnis 4/7

2019. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Special Court, Mumbai on 30th November 2019, on certain terms and conditions stipulated in the said order. The said order granting bail to the petitioner is at Exhibit – ‘A’ on page 16 of the petition. One of the condition set out by the Special Court is that the ‘Applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior permission of this court’. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner post his release on bail has travelled overseas on 5 occasions, on certain terms and conditions stipulated in the said orders. Infact, on one occasion whilst granting permission to the petitioner to travel overseas, this Court in its order dated 26th March 2024 has observed in para 6 of the said order that in the past, the petitioner had travelled abroad with the permission of the Special Court and had returned to India and as such the same deserves due weight. It was also observed that if seen the prism of the past conduct of the petitioner, the apprehension on the part of the respondent No.1 cannot be said to be well founded.

N. S. Chitnis 5/7

7. We have also perused the LOC dated 1st October 2019 and the reason for opening of the LOC i.e. the petitioner is an associate of Iqbal Mirchi and is suspected to be involved in the conspiracy to transfer the proceeds of crime to overseas. It is also not in dispute that complaint has been filed in the PMLA case against the petitioner and the said case is pending before the Special Court, Mumbai. As per the office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 22nd February 2021, it is incumbent as per clause – 'J' for the Originating Agency to keep reviewing the LOCs opened at its behest on a quarterly and annual basis and submit the proposals to delete the LOC, if any, immediately after such a review. The respondent No.3- ED has not placed on record before us whether any such review was conducted by the ED for keeping the LOC pending, despite being asked to do so.

8. Considering what is stated aforesaid, the petition is allowed and the LOC issued against the petitioner at the behest of the respondent No.3-ED, is quashed and set aside.

N. S. Chitnis 6/7