){kind=link}
A local court in Haryana has summoned Ramesh Sanka, former CEO of IREO Residences Company Pvt Ltd, to appear before the court in a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for embezzlement of money.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) at Gurugram court, Manoj Kumar Rana, passed the order on March 6. The court further sent co-accused in the case, Vivek Sehgal, to judicial custody till April 21.
The ACJM noted that in view of the contents mentioned in the application and the report on non-bailable warrants of the accused, he was satisfied that the presence of accused Ramesh Sanka could not be secured through issuance of non-bailable warrants.
The court then summoned Sanka to remain present before it on April 21, after noting that the warrant of arrest issued against Sanka was received back unexecuted.
Assistant Public Prosecutor Kapil Bhati appeared for Haryana, assisted by Advocate M.K. Dang, Counsel for the complainant. Accused Vivek was represented by Advocate Bhupender Pratap.
Earlier on February 24, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had refused to grant anticipatory bail to Sanka in a case related to stealing of documents and criminal breach of trust.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil had denied anticipatory bail to Sanka and another accused in the case, Sumit Kumar, on the grounds of ‘grave and serious’ nature of allegations, including cheating and extorting money in conspiracy with each other.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court verdict of 2018 in the Rohit Tondon vs Directorate of Enforcement case, which held that economic offenders need to be treated differently as a class apart.
Justice Moudgil observed that prima facie, the case involved serious allegations of huge financial transactions, which needed to be treated differently.
He further took note of the fact that other co-accused involved in the commissioning of offence, namely Vivek Sehgal, was in judicial custody and has not been granted regular bail so far.
As per the High Court, the investigation was at a nascent stage, which could not be proceeded further until or unless the petitioners were taken into custody.
It further observed that delay in investigation due to non-cooperation of the petitioners would only benefit the accused alone due to its non-completion.
(Case title: State of Haryana vs Vivek Sehgal)