9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1053 - HC - Money LaunderingCommission of offense punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - whether rigorous of Section 45 of the PML Act is not applicable qua the applicant inasmuch as no offence is committed by the applicant the applicant is not accused of having committed any scheduled offence? - Held that - Having taken into consideration the contents of the complainant filed by the respondent authority dated 29.10.2014 Annexure-A to this application with specific reference to the role attributed to the present applicant more particularly para 28 of the said complainant it is recorded that this Court is not in a position to record such satisfaction. It is further noted that while doing so it is kept in view that the word reasonable needs to be understood and interpreted reasonably and not that acquittal needs to be recorded at this stage Since this Court is unable to record the first satisfaction as contemplated under Section 45 (1) (ii) of the PML Act it would be immaterial as to whether the applicant meets with the second requirement. There is no dispute that both the stipulations need to be met with and if any one is missing it would not be permissible to release the applicant on bail It is clarified that the reasons recorded in this order is only for the limited purpose of deciding this application for bail and any observation by this Court may not be construed as this Court having expressed any opinion on merits of the matter and the same shall not have any bearing at the time of trial against the applicant. The Trial Court shall in no way be influenced by the observation of this Court in this order since as noted above it is only for the purpose of deciding this application.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). 2. Entitlement to bail based on the satisfaction of conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA. 3. Parity with other accused individuals. 4. The argument that no scheduled offence was committed. 5. Relevance of cited authorities and case laws. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA: The applicant contended that the rigorous conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA do not apply to him as he is not accused of committing any scheduled offence. However, the respondent opposed this, arguing that Section 45 applies fully to the applicant. The court noted that the applicant had previously challenged the constitutionality of Section 45 in Special Criminal Application No.4496 of 2014, which was dismissed. The court held that the dismissal of the constitutional challenge does not bar the applicant from seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Entitlement to Bail Based on Satisfaction of Conditions Under Section 45 of the PMLA: Section 45 of the PMLA stipulates that bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court emphasized that the term "reasonable" must be interpreted reasonably and not imply an acquittal at this stage. Upon reviewing the material on record, particularly the complaint dated 29.10.2014, the court found that it could not reasonably believe that the applicant was not guilty of the offence charged. As a result, the first condition under Section 45 was not satisfied, making the second condition irrelevant. 3. Parity with Other Accused Individuals: The applicant argued for bail on the grounds of parity with other accused individuals who were either not arrested or had non-bailable warrants converted into summons. The court rejected this argument, stating that each accused's role is different and the satisfaction required under Section 45 must be individually assessed. Non-arrest or conversion of warrants does not imply that the court has recorded the necessary satisfaction for bail under Section 45. 4. The Argument That No Scheduled Offence Was Committed: The applicant claimed that he had not committed any scheduled offence. The court referred to the Division Bench's decision in Special Criminal Application No.4496 of 2014, which had already addressed this issue. The court held that it could not re-examine this argument in light of the Division Bench's findings. 5. Relevance of Cited Authorities and Case Laws: The applicant cited various authorities and case laws to support his bail application. The court acknowledged the legal propositions in the cited cases but emphasized that the satisfaction required under Section 45 of the PMLA must be based on the specific facts of the case. The cited authorities could not substitute the court's need to record satisfaction based on the case's merits. Conclusion: The court dismissed the bail application, concluding that the applicant failed to satisfy the conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA. The court clarified that its observations were solely for deciding the bail application and should not influence the trial court's decision on the case's merits.
|
