Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2016 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (4) TMI 1168 - HC - Money Laundering


Issues:
Bail application during writ petition pending

Analysis:
The respondent, represented by Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG, opposed the bail application during the pendency of the writ petition, citing concerns that granting bail could lead to the creation of a fresh paper trail justifying illegal transactions. The allegations against the petitioners were deemed serious, involving large sums of money. Mr. Jain relied on the case of Gautam Kundu Vs. Manoj Kumar to argue that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) imposes conditions for granting bail, emphasizing the need for the Public Prosecutor to oppose the bail application and for the Court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offenses while on bail.

Analysis:
In response, Mr. Vikram Chaudhari, representing the petitioner Gurucharan Singh, contended that Section 45 of the PMLA should not apply as no FIRs were lodged against the petitioners, and they were not charged with any scheduled offense under Part-A of the PMLA. However, Mr. Jain argued that an FIR had been filed by the CBI against known and unknown persons, including the petitioners, making them subject to Section 45 of the PMLA. He also referenced the case of Union of India Vs. Hasan Ali to support his argument.

Analysis:
Mr. Jain further highlighted that under Section 24 of the PMLA, the burden of proving that proceeds of crime are untainted property lies with the accused, which, according to him, the petitioners had not discharged. He referred to the case of Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy to emphasize the seriousness of economic offenses and the need for a different approach to bail in such cases. The court, considering the arguments presented, granted bail to the petitioners under specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent any interference with the investigation or potential tampering with evidence.

Analysis:
The conditions imposed on the petitioners included executing a bond, restrictions on leaving the jurisdiction, regular appearances before the Investigating Officer, providing contact information, refraining from contact with involved parties, and complying with specific instructions related to the investigation. The court also directed the petitioners not to deal with foreign entities, engage in import/export activities, or rely on certain documents during the trial. Additionally, the respondents were granted leave to file a counter affidavit post admission, and a pending letter of request for information was mentioned in the proceedings.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates