9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1896 - HC - Money LaunderingGrant of Bail - attachment of Bank accounts - schedule offences - principles of parity - Division Bench, with regard to co-accused pradeep Garg directed the Special Court to pass the bail order in the light of order of Supreme Court in OMPAL SINGH (PRADEEP GARG) VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) ANR. 2018 (4) TMI 1845 - SC ORDER granting or refusing bail to co-accused, Pradeep Garg in schedule offences - HELD THAT - Hon ble Supreme Court in Nikesh Tara Chandra s case 2017 (11) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT while granting bail to the applicant in schedule offences, has opined that the entire money of the State shall stand secured and in this regard bank accounts of the applicant to the tune of ₹ 5.11 Crore has also been attached by the E.D. The applicant is in jail in this matter since 16.01.2018 and Co Accused pradeep Garg standing on identical footing has been released on bail by trial Court in compliance of order passed by Division Bench of this Court. In view of above and on the principle of parity the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. In view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the applicant has been released on bail by Honble Supreme Court in schedule offences, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail - Bail application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. False implication and prolonged custody. 2. Parity with co-accused. 3. Conduct during investigation. 4. Maximum sentence under PMLA. 5. Secured alleged loss. 6. Possession of documentary evidence. 7. Economic offences and their gravity. 8. Influence over witnesses and investigation. 9. Distinction between schedule offences and PMLA offences. 10. Parity with co-accused Pradeep Garg. 11. Twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA. 12. Grant of bail by Supreme Court. Detailed Analysis: 1. False Implication and Prolonged Custody: The accused-applicant claimed false implication in the case and highlighted his prolonged custody since 29.4.2016 in the CBI case and since 16.1.2018 in the PMLA case. The applicant emphasized that he was granted regular bail by the Supreme Court in related schedule offences, suggesting his eligibility for bail in the current case. 2. Parity with Co-accused: The applicant argued for bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Pradeep Garg, who was granted bail by a subordinate court following a Division Bench order. The applicant asserted that his case was identical to that of Pradeep Garg, thus warranting similar consideration for bail. 3. Conduct During Investigation: The applicant highlighted his cooperation during the investigation, noting that he was not arrested during the probe and had consistently appeared before the trial court. This demonstrated his good conduct and lack of attempts to evade the law. 4. Maximum Sentence Under PMLA: The applicant pointed out that the maximum sentence under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA is seven years, and he had no prior criminal antecedents. The investigation was complete, and the trial had commenced, but only one out of 75 prosecution witnesses had been examined, indicating a lengthy trial process. 5. Secured Alleged Loss: The applicant argued that the alleged loss of ?5.11 Crore caused to NOIDA was secured by the Enforcement Directorate through attachment of his bank accounts. This provisional attachment was confirmed by the adjudicating authority, ensuring that the alleged loss was covered. 6. Possession of Documentary Evidence: The applicant asserted that the prosecution's documentary evidence was already in possession of the investigating agencies, reducing the risk of tampering. He argued that continued incarceration would amount to pretrial punishment. 7. Economic Offences and Their Gravity: The Union of India opposed the bail application, emphasizing the gravity of economic offences, which involve deep-rooted conspiracies and significant public fund losses. Such offences require a different approach, especially in bail considerations, due to their impact on the nation's financial health. 8. Influence Over Witnesses and Investigation: The prosecution argued that the applicant, being influential in terms of money and muscle power, could tamper with witnesses and the ongoing investigation. This posed a reasonable apprehension against granting bail. 9. Distinction Between Schedule Offences and PMLA Offences: The prosecution contended that schedule offences and PMLA offences are distinct and unrelated, challenging the applicant's argument that bail in schedule offences should automatically extend to the PMLA case. 10. Parity with Co-accused Pradeep Garg: The court noted that co-accused Pradeep Garg, standing on identical footing, was granted provisional bail by the Division Bench, which was later confirmed following the Supreme Court's grant of regular bail. The court acknowledged that the applicant's case was similar, warranting consideration for bail on the ground of parity. 11. Twin Conditions Under Section 45 of PMLA: The court observed that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were quashed by the Supreme Court in the Nikesh Tara Chandra case. The applicant's cooperation during the investigation and the attachment of his bank accounts further supported his bail application. 12. Grant of Bail by Supreme Court: The Supreme Court granted bail to the applicant in the schedule offences without imposing any condition to deposit additional money. The court noted that the entire money of the state was secured, making the applicant eligible for bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Pradeep Garg. Conclusion: The court, considering the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, and submissions of the learned counsel, granted bail to the applicant. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of ?5,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent tampering with the prosecution evidence.
|
