2015 (10) TMI 2804 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Validity of warrants issued for securing her presence before the learned Special Judge, Patiala in a statutory complaint - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that during investigation of the money laundering case, the petitioner was never arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in exercise of its powers under Section 19 of the Act - The assets created by the petitioner with the alleged aid of proceeds of crime have already been seized/attached. It is not the case of Enforcement Directorate that any private vulnerable witness is to depose against her. It would, thus, be too much presumptuous at this stage that the petitioner would tamper with the evidence - The complaint is at the initial stage and its adjudication will take time. The interim order dated 26.8.2015 is made absolute - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to warrants issued under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Bail application; Allegations of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses; Statutory bar against grant of bail under Section 45(1)(ii) of the Act.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging warrants issued for the petitioner's presence before the Special Judge in a money laundering case. The petitioner was granted interim bail on furnishing bail bonds. The Enforcement Directorate opposed the bail application citing the petitioner's association with a drug mafia kingpin, alleged proceeds of crime, potential tampering with evidence, and the gravity of the offense. The Court considered various factors, including the petitioner not being previously arrested, assets being seized, absence of vulnerable witnesses against her, and the early stage of the complaint. The Court found no purpose in remanding the petitioner to judicial custody and made the interim bail absolute.

The key points considered by the Court included the lack of prior arrest of the petitioner by the Enforcement Directorate, seizure of assets allegedly linked to proceeds of crime, absence of vulnerable witnesses against the petitioner, and the relatively early stage of the complaint. The Court noted that the maximum sentence for the offense under the Act is 7 years, with a possibility of extension to 10 years in certain cases. The Court also clarified that the stringent provisions of Section 45(1)(ii) of the Act apply when considering bail for an accused arrested by the Enforcement Directorate. Given these circumstances, the Court found no justification for keeping the petitioner in judicial custody pending trial and thus upheld the interim bail granted earlier.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the petition, emphasizing that the interim bail granted to the petitioner was to continue. The judgment reflects a detailed analysis of the grounds raised by the Enforcement Directorate opposing bail, balanced against the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately leading to the decision to maintain the petitioner's bail status.