2016 (10) TMI 1030 - HC - Money Laundering

Prevention of Money Laundering - Bail application - Held that - There is a detailed panchnama about the attachment of movable and immovable properties belonging to the applicants and seizure of articles and documents. So far as the apprehension with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned it can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions of bail with regard to marking of presence and regular reporting before the concerned authorities. It appears that most of the witnesses are of Enforcement Directorate and therefore chances of influencing the officers of the Enforcement Directorate are bleak. As aforesaid all the other co-accused facing similar allegations were enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench therefore on the ground of parity also the case of the present applicants deserves to be considered for grant of bail. Thus having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances this Court is of the view that looking to the nature and gravity of accusations made against the applicants from the charge sheet papers pertaining to scheduled offences and the other investigating material of PMLA cases and as there are no criminal antecedents as to PMLA cases discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the applicants by passing the following order The present applications are allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the offences registered with Directorate of Enforcement Ahmedabad as well as PMLA Complaint on executing a personal bond of 2, 00, 000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) each with two sureties each of 50, 000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and the applicants without prejudice to their rights and contentions shall deposit a sum of 25, 00, 000/- each separately before the designated Special Court within one month from the date of their release and the release of the applicants shall not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;surrender passport if any to the lower court forthwith if not already deposited;shall not enter into Vadodara Mehsana Kheda and Gandhinagar Districts and not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Designated Special Court concerned.

Issues Involved:
1. Regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Allegations of money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Validity and admissibility of statements recorded under coercion.
4. Applicability of Section 45 of the PML Act to the applicants.
5. Cognizability of offences under the PML Act.
6. Parity in bail decisions with co-accused.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Regular Bail under Section 439 of CrPC and Section 45 of PML Act:
The applicants sought regular bail in connection with ECIR No. ECIR/03/AMZ0/2015 and PMLA Complaint No.8/2015. The court considered whether the applicants met the conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PML Act, which includes the public prosecutor's opportunity to oppose and the court's satisfaction that the applicants are not guilty and are unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

2. Allegations of Money Laundering:
The Enforcement Directorate alleged that the applicants were involved in money laundering activities related to cricket betting, with transactions amounting to ?116,80,87,500/-. The applicants were accused of criminal breach of trust and cheating to obtain sim-cards from mobile companies using forged documents, and of receiving and placing bets amounting to ?24,969,99,08,750/- through their firm M/s. Maruti, Ahmedabad.

3. Validity and Admissibility of Statements Recorded Under Coercion:
The applicants argued that their statements were recorded under duress and coercion by the officers of respondent No.2, and thus, should not be relied upon. They contended that the statements of the co-accused could not be the sole basis for conviction without corroborative evidence. The court noted that the issue of whether the confessional statements made before the Enforcement Directorate could be relied upon for conviction required consideration at the time of evidence appreciation.

4. Applicability of Section 45 of PML Act to the Applicants:
The court examined whether the limitations under Section 45 of the PML Act applied to the applicants. It was noted that the scheduled offences in this case were certain sections of the Indian Penal Code, which were moved from Part B to Part A of the schedule in 2013. The court referred to the judgment in Gorav Kathuria vs. Union of India, which held that the twin limitations in Section 45(1) did not apply to offences that were earlier listed in Part B of the schedule.

5. Cognizability of Offences under PML Act:
The court discussed whether offences under the PML Act were cognizable or non-cognizable. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Rakesh Manekchand Kothari (supra) held that the offences under the PML Act were non-cognizable, requiring compliance with procedures under Chapter XII of CrPC. This view was upheld by the Supreme Court, making it binding.

6. Parity in Bail Decisions with Co-Accused:
The court considered the principle of parity, noting that eight co-accused had been released on bail, including partners of the applicants in M/s. Maruti, Ahmedabad. The court observed that the applicants had been in custody for about one year and six months, and the trial had not yet commenced. The court found that the applicants' presence could be secured at the time of trial by imposing appropriate conditions.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the bail applications, ordering the applicants to be released on regular bail with specific conditions, including depositing ?25,00,000/- each before the designated Special Court, marking presence before the Enforcement Directorate, and not leaving the State of Gujarat without prior permission. The court also rejected the prayer for staying the order for four weeks to enable the respondent to approach the Supreme Court.

← Previous Next →