Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2017 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 952 - HC - Money LaunderingPrevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - grant of bail - Held that - In the present case, sufficient material has been placed on record to show, of course, prima facie, that petitioner is not a house wife. She is a highly qualified lady having completed Masters in Finance in the year 2002 from international university. She was actively involved in the affairs of the various companies by virtue of her holding responsible positions, inasmuch as, she was holding power of attorney in her favour from M/s Atlanta Natural Resources PTE. Ltd., Cronimet Mining GmbH, Matrix Holdings Limited etc. In the order dated 23rd August, 2017, learned Special Judge has recorded, on the basis of medical reports regarding health condition of the petitioner, that physiotherapy was being provided to her. It has been further noted that upon enquires made from the petitioner she submitted that she was getting proper medications and physiotherapy. Order dated 4th September, 2017 also indicates that jail authorities have been directed to make necessary arrangements for physiotherapy of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to establish that petitioner is suffering from such serious ailments which necessitates her treatment in multi specialty hospital from specialist doctor. Petitioner can be and is being provided medical treatment in jail itself. Petitioner only requires physiotherapy which can easily be provided either in jail or in any other hospital affiliated to the jail or in the vicinity of the jail. The offence alleged against the petitioner falls under the category of economic offences which stand on a graver footing. These crimes are professionally committed by white-collared people which inflict severe injuries on both health and wealth of the nation. Such offences need to be dealt with a heavy hand and releasing such accused on bail will affect the community at large and also jeopardize the economy of the country. The plea of parity is also not tenable in this case since the court did not consider, refer to and discuss the rigours of Section 45(1) of the PMLA. Petitioner has also failed to bring out any special circumstances for her release on bail being a woman or sick, keeping in mind the nature and gravity of offence, bail application is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 2. Applicability of the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA for women and sick persons. 3. Consideration of the gravity of economic offences in bail decisions. 4. Parity in bail decisions with co-accused. Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA): The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 45 of the PMLA. The case involved allegations of money laundering related to a contract for VVIP helicopters, where the petitioner and co-accused were instrumental in laundering bribe money through various consultancy contracts and companies. The petitioner was arrested and did not cooperate with the investigation, providing evasive replies and withholding information about her associations with companies in Mauritius and Dubai. 2. Applicability of the Proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA for Women and Sick Persons: The petitioner argued that as a woman and a sick person, the rigours of Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA should not apply to her, citing the first proviso to Section 45. The court examined whether the proviso could be invoked to benefit the petitioner. It was noted that the proviso is an enabling provision allowing the court to exercise discretion in appropriate cases for women or sick persons. However, it was emphasized that this discretion should be applied based on special circumstances and not as a matter of course. 3. Consideration of the Gravity of Economic Offences in Bail Decisions: The court highlighted that economic offences, especially those professionally committed by white-collared individuals, inflict severe injuries on the nation's health and wealth. Such offences are treated with greater severity, and releasing accused individuals on bail could jeopardize the economy and affect the community at large. The court referenced previous judgments, including Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, where bail was declined despite serious medical conditions, underscoring the gravity with which economic offences are treated. 4. Parity in Bail Decisions with Co-Accused: The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of parity, noting that other co-accused had been released on bail. The court rejected this plea, stating that the rigours of Section 45(1) of the PMLA were not considered in those cases. Additionally, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any special circumstances warranting her release on bail as a woman or a sick person. The court emphasized that the nature and gravity of the offence must be considered, and the petitioner did not meet the criteria for bail under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. Conclusion: The court dismissed the bail application, concluding that the petitioner did not qualify for bail under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. The petitioner’s involvement in serious economic offences, lack of cooperation with the investigation, and the absence of special circumstances justifying bail as a woman or sick person were key factors in the decision. The court reiterated the need to deal with economic offences with a heavy hand to prevent jeopardizing the economy and affecting the community.
|