2014 (11) TMI 1146 - HC - Money Laundering

Bail application - Summons received under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - Held that - Reasonable would mean fair and sensible. The applicant is facing the principal charges under Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The offence under PMLA 2002 is an ancillary offence. Proviso (ii) to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 does not denude the court of the discretionary powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The said proviso would contemplate abundant caution while granting bail in economic offences. Reason to believe is an expression of state of mind which has to be drawn by inference and the Court cannot record such a finding at the pre-trial stage. It would cause prejudice to prosecution or defence . Hence, this Court is only considering the issue of further incarceration pending trial which cannot be completed in near future. Taking into consideration that the applicant has been in custody for almost three months and also co-operated with the investigating agency for the past five years, the inordinate delay in filing the formal complaint is not explained by the prosecution. Hence, the applicant would be entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature. That the co-accused shall not claim parity with the present applicant and their application needs to be decided on its own merits. The Designated Court shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove as they pertain to consideration of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The application is allowed. The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

Summary

Issues involved:
Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding custody under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA 2002) in a specific case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Allegations:
The applicant, a former Assistant Manager at Union Bank of India, was implicated in a case involving fraudulent transactions where pay-in-slips were stamped as cash received without actual cash deposits. The applicant allegedly authorized transfers and endorsed documents despite no physical cash transactions. Charges under IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act, and PMLA 2002 were filed against the applicant and others.

2. Delay in Formal Complaint:
There was a significant delay in filing a formal complaint under PMLA 2002 against the applicant and others, with the first complaint filed in 2014 despite the investigation starting in 2009. The prosecution cited that the accused were aware of potential prosecution under PMLA 2002, justifying the delay.

3. Bail Application and Legal Provisions:
The applicant sought bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., arguing against further incarceration due to lack of custodial necessity. The prosecution opposed bail citing Section 45 of PMLA 2002, which restricts bail for certain offenses unless specific conditions are met, including the Public Prosecutor's opposition and no likelihood of reoffending.

4. Judicial Interpretation and Precedent:
The court considered the interpretation of Section 45 of PMLA 2002 and the applicant's potential guilt, emphasizing the need for a delicate balance between bail and trial proceedings. Precedent from the Apex Court was cited to support the argument that bail should be granted unless there is a high likelihood of reoffending under the specific Act in question.

5. Grant of Bail:
Considering the applicant's cooperation with the investigation over several years, the court found the delay in filing the formal complaint unexplained by the prosecution. Consequently, the court allowed the applicant's bail application, emphasizing that observations made were prima facie and not binding on co-accused or the Designated Court.

6. Court Order and Conditions:
The court granted bail to the applicant upon furnishing a bond and sureties, with strict conditions including staying in Mumbai and Thane, attending all trial dates, and promptly updating the court on any changes in personal details. The court ordered the applicant's release, subject to compliance with these conditions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal aspects, arguments presented, and the court's decision regarding the bail application under the PMLA 2002 and related criminal charges.