2018 (5) TMI 1799 - HC - Money Laundering

Offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA - bail application - Held that - The petitioner is in custody for the last about seven months and after filing of complaint no further steps have been taken to produce any evidence. Submission of respondent that the matter is still under investigation shows that it will take considerably long time for the Enforcement Director to complete its investigation. The case is based on documentary evidence. So far as submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner after being released may not appear in Court and it will be difficult to procure his presence, is no reason to decline bail to petitioner as he is resident of Ludhiana. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and that conclusion of trial will take considerably long time, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner-Raman Kumar Garg is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, subject to following terms - (b) In the event of his absence on any date of hearing, the benefit of bail allowed to the petitioner shall stand withdrawn.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail in a case registered for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner was arrested on the allegation of wrong refund under the Punjab VAT Act, 2005. The maximum sentence for the offences is seven years. The respondent has seized account books, bank statements, and attached property worth `10 crores. The trial is expected to be prolonged due to the documentary evidence involved, and keeping the petitioner in custody serves no purpose.

Analysis:
The counsel for the Union of India argued that the petitioner diverted `1,56,00,000/- to family members and others, with some family members still not arrested. The property attached was mortgaged with significant liabilities. The investigation is ongoing, and the presence of the petitioner in court may be challenging if released on bail. The petitioner has been in custody for seven months with no progress in producing evidence post the complaint filing.

Analysis:
The court noted the prolonged investigation period and the documentary evidence basis of the case. The argument that the petitioner may not appear in court if released was dismissed as the petitioner is a resident of Ludhiana. Without delving into the case's merits, considering the extended trial duration, the court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to compliance with specified conditions.

Conclusion:
The High Court granted the petitioner, Raman Kumar Garg, regular bail in the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, based on the extended trial period, documentary evidence, and the petitioner's residency. The bail was subject to compliance with conditions outlined by the court to ensure the petitioner's presence during the trial proceedings.