9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2579 - HC - Money LaunderingBail application - nature of offence - Prevention of Money Laundering - Held that - As far as the allegations levelled against the present applicant are concerned, I have gone through the statement of the applicant himself. It appears that he was assisting his brother who was dealing with the cricket betting though he might be deciding or circulating the bhav (rate). The investigation is almost over and on completion of investigation, the present complaint has been filed by the authority. I have also considered the fact that the maximum punishment is of 7 years and, therefore, the case of the applicant can be considered by imposing certain conditions. The application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail registered at the instance of the respondent No.2, on executing a bond of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with two local sureties of ₹ 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; a not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; b not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution; c surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; d not leave State of Gujarat and Union territory of Delhi without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; e mark presence with the respondent No.2 every Monday for a period of three months and thereafter on any day of the first week of each English Calendar month for a period of one year; f furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for 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. Allegations of involvement in cricket betting and Hawala activities. 3. Applicability of the definition of "proceeds of crime" under PMLA. 4. Burden of proof under Section 24 of PMLA. 5. Conditions for granting bail under Section 45 of PMLA. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Bail: The applicant sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The application was made during the pendency of the trial in connection with ECIR No. - ECIR/03/AMZO/2015 [NOW PMLA Complaint No.8 of 2015]. The applicant was previously denied bail by the Designated Special Judge, leading to the current application. 2. Allegations of Involvement in Cricket Betting and Hawala Activities: The case originated from an FIR lodged on 25.3.2015, alleging that the applicant and others were involved in a Hawala racket and cricket betting. The Enforcement Department raided a farm house where 16 persons were found indulging in these activities. The applicant was alleged to be part of a partnership firm involved in these illegal activities. Various electronic gadgets and forged SIM cards were seized during the raid. 3. Applicability of the Definition of "Proceeds of Crime" Under PMLA: The applicant's counsel argued that the amount derived from cricket betting does not fall under the definition of "proceeds of crime" as per Section 2 (u) of PMLA, since betting is not a scheduled offence under Section 2 (y) of PMLA. The counsel contended that the applicant was only involved in betting, which is not a scheduled offence, and hence, the provisions of Section 45 of PMLA would not be applicable. 4. Burden of Proof Under Section 24 of PMLA: The respondent's counsel argued that under Section 24 of PMLA, the burden of proof lies on the accused to prove that the money received is untainted. The applicant failed to establish that the money involved was untainted property. The respondent's counsel also highlighted the seriousness of the alleged scam, involving around Rs. 2500 Crores in cricket betting. 5. Conditions for Granting Bail Under Section 45 of PMLA: Section 45 of PMLA stipulates that no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule shall be released on bail unless certain conditions are met. However, the court noted that the applicant was not facing any charge under Part A of the Schedule, and hence, Section 45 (1) of PMLA would not be prima facie applicable. The court considered the maximum punishment of 7 years and decided to grant bail with specific conditions. Conclusion: The court allowed the application and ordered the applicant to be released on bail, subject to several conditions, including not taking undue advantage of liberty, not acting in a manner injurious to the prosecution, surrendering his passport, not leaving the State of Gujarat and Union territory of Delhi without prior permission, marking presence with the respondent every Monday for three months, and furnishing the present address of residence. The court emphasized that the trial court should not be influenced by the preliminary observations made while enlarging the applicant on bail. Implementation Stay Request: At the time of pronouncement, the respondent's counsel requested a stay on the implementation of the order, which was refused by the court.
|
