2015 (10) TMI 2580 - HC - Money Laundering

Judicial custody of Petitioners happen to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Jagdish Singh @ Bhola who is alleged to be the kingpin of drug mafia - Money Laundering - Held that - We are satisfied that no purpose shall be served by putting the petitioners in judicial custody pending trial in the Statutory Complaint. We say for the reasons that (i) It is an admitted fact that during investigation of the money laundering case, the petitioners were never arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in exercise of its powers under Section 19 of the Act; (ii) The assets created by the petitioners with the alleged aid of proceeds of crime have already been seized/attached; (iii) It is not the case of Enforcement Directorate that any private vulnerable witness is to depose against them. It would, thus, be too much presumptuous at this stage that the petitioners would tamper with the evidence; (iv) The maximum sentence for an offence under the Act is 7 years though it may extend to 10 years if the case falls under proviso to Section 4 of the Act; (v) It further appears that rigors of Section 45(1)(ii) of the Act would be attracted only while considering the bail plea of an accused who has been arrested by the E.D. Under Section 19 of the Act; (vi) The complaint is at the initial stage and its adjudication will take time.

Summary

Issues: Bail application of father-in-law and mother-in-law in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the main accused in a money laundering case, were summoned to face trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. They were granted interim bail on furnishing bail bonds.
2. The Enforcement Directorate opposed the bail application, highlighting that the petitioners were closely related to the main accused, had amassed assets from untraced sources of income, could tamper with evidence, and the offense was grave with a statutory bar against bail.
3. The court considered the arguments and found that the petitioners were never arrested during the investigation, their assets were already seized, no vulnerable witness was to depose against them, and the maximum sentence for the offense was 7 years. The court noted that the provisions of Section 45(1)(ii) of the Act would apply only if the accused had been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate.
4. Given these factors and the early stage of the complaint, the court concluded that keeping the petitioners in judicial custody pending trial would serve no purpose. Therefore, the interim bail granted earlier was made absolute, and the bail application was disposed of.