2021 (3) TMI 1220 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Regular Bail - seizure of immovable properties as well as bank accounts - prosecution of PMLA - HELD THAT - The applicant is ready and willing to deposit an amount of ₹ 50 Lakh within stipulated period - Considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis:
The applicant filed an application seeking regular bail in connection with an FIR registered for multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code. The applicant's counsel argued for bail, emphasizing the nature of the offence and proposing suitable conditions for bail. On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State opposed the grant of bail, citing the seriousness of the offence. Both parties did not press for a detailed order, leading to a concise hearing.

The Court considered various aspects of the case, including the date of the offence, the applicant's custody duration, the completion of the investigation with a filed chargesheet, and the alleged financial gains from government advertisements. The applicant was also facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), with seized properties and bank accounts disbursed under the prosecution agency. The applicant expressed readiness to deposit a substantial amount within a specified period, which influenced the Court's decision.

Referring to legal precedents, the Court invoked the case law of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation to guide its decision-making process. Without delving into detailed evidence, the Court, based on prima facie assessment, deemed it appropriate to grant the applicant regular bail, considering the allegations in the FIR.

Consequently, the Court allowed the application, ordering the applicant's release on bail upon executing a personal bond and fulfilling specified conditions. These conditions included restrictions on liberty, surrendering passport, periodic reporting to the police station, and depositing a significant sum before the Trial Court within a defined timeframe. Breach of conditions empowered the Sessions Judge to take necessary actions.

The Court directed the release of the applicant unless required in connection with other offences, with the bail bond to be executed before the Trial Court. It granted the Trial Court autonomy to modify or relax the imposed conditions as per legal provisions. Notably, the Court emphasized that its observations during bail should not influence the trial proceedings.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the application, making the rule absolute to the specified extent and permitting direct service of the order.