2015 (4) TMI 1162 - HC - Money Laundering

Invoking the provisions of the PML Act - offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Bail application - Held that - This Court is not in a position to record satisfaction to the effect that, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence, he is charged with. In absence of such satisfaction, in view of above observations of the Division Bench of this Court, this application needs to be dismissed. The argument made on behalf of the applicant that he is already granted bail, on the same set of facts would not help him, for the reason that the present one is the case under the PML Act and the parameters are as noted above. So far the allegation made by the applicant about the mala fide exercise of power by the State Authorities is concerned, it is noted that, the scope of this application is exercise of powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the said power needs to be exercised keeping in view the parameters stipulated under Section 45 of the PML Act. The position with regard to the satisfaction of this Court under Section 45 of the PML Act, is as noted above. For this reason, that aspect is not gone into by this Court. So far the authorities cited by learned senior advocate for the applicant are concerned, there can not be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law enunciated therein, however none of the authorities can be substitute to the satisfaction to be recorded by this Court as required under Section 45 of the PML Act, as noted above, and the said satisfaction needs to be recorded on the facts and it can not be a question of law. This application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Anticipatory Bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a case involving alleged offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
1. Application for Anticipatory Bail: The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The applicant had previously filed a similar application which was rejected by the designated court. The applicant's senior advocate argued that the State Authorities were targeting the applicant with mala-fide intentions, citing various criminal cases registered against the applicant. The advocate contended that the present proceeding was initiated in bad faith to keep the applicant in jail, despite being granted bail in other cases. The advocate relied on legal precedents to support the request for anticipatory bail.

2. Opposition by State Authorities: The Assistant Solicitor General opposed the anticipatory bail application, asserting that there was substantial evidence implicating the applicant in the alleged offence under the PML Act. The ASG presented affidavits and investigative materials to demonstrate the seriousness of the charges against the applicant. It was argued that the stringent provisions of Section 45 of the PML Act applied, requiring the court to be convinced of the applicant's innocence and non-likelihood of committing further offences while on bail. The ASG referred to a relevant Division Bench decision to support the opposition to the bail application.

3. Legal Analysis of Section 45 of the PML Act: The court analyzed Section 45 of the PML Act, emphasizing the conditions for granting bail in cases involving offences punishable by imprisonment exceeding three years. The court highlighted the necessity of satisfying two key criteria: the belief in the applicant's innocence and the assurance that the applicant will not commit further offences if granted bail. The court noted that the satisfaction of these conditions was essential for granting anticipatory bail under the PML Act.

4. Court's Decision: After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the court concluded that it could not satisfy itself that there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was not guilty of the alleged offence. As a result, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application. The court clarified that its decision was specific to the bail application and should not influence future applications or the trial proceedings. The court extended interim protection to the applicant for a limited period following the dismissal of the bail application.