R.K. Agrawal JUDGMENT
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st July, 2015 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRM No. 6285 of 2015, whereby the High Court has rejected Appellant's application for bail Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Appellant was arrested on 25.03.2015 in relation to an offence alleged to have been committed Under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as "PMLA").
3. The Appellant is the Chairman of Rose Valley Real Estate Construction Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Rose Valley"), a public company incorporated in the year 1999 and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Certain non-convertible debentures were issued by the Rose Valley by 'private placement method.' No advertisements etc. were issued to the public. The said debentures were issued to the employees of the Company and to their friends and associates after fulfilling the formalities for private placement of debentures. Thus, the Appellant collected money by issuing secured debentures by way of private placement in compliance with the guidelines issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India from time to time.
4. On 26.03.2013, the Adjudicating Officer, SEBI, passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 crore upon the Rose Valley for violation of the provisions of Sections 11(C) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the SEBI Act) which was reduced to Rs. 10 lakhs by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. A letter was issued on 26.06.2013 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI") to the Appellant Rose Valley informing the Appellant about the offences alleged to have been committed by it under the Companies Act, SEBI Act & Regulations, and Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal filed by the Appellant before the Securities Appellate Tribunal was allowed on 12.12.2013, holding that the Appellant Company has repaid all the money collected from the investors. It was further held by the Securities Appellate Tribunal that there are no grounds for violation of Section 11(C)(3) of the SEBI Act.
5. On the basis of the aforementioned letter dated 26.06.2013 issued by SEBI, the Respondent filed a report being ECIR No. KIZO/02/2014 dated 27.02.2014, alleging commission of offence by the Rose Valley and its officers, punishable Under Section 24 of the SEBI Act. Thereafter, search and seizure was conducted at the offices of the Rose Valley.
6. A complaint was filed by the Respondent authorities, being C/14214 of 2013, alleging that the Rose Valley transferred the money raised by issue of debentures from the account of one company to that of another company. It is also alleged that the money collect........