2017 (7) TMI 1389 - HC - Money Laundering

Second Bail application - scheduled offence - proceeds of crime - Section 120-B, 420 and 471 IPC included in the Schedule of Offence Part A of the Act during relevant period - first bail application was rejected - HELD THAT - From the perusal of the first bail application of the applicant it appears that the ground which has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant in the second bail application has already been considered by learned Single Judge of this Court and simply because the reference has not been made in the order rejecting the bail application cannot be said to be a new ground for the present second bail application. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, it is found that no new ground is made out for enlarging the applicant on bail. Bail application rejected.

Summary

Issues: Bail application rejection based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

In this judgment by the High Court, the applicant filed a second bail application after the first one was rejected by a Single Judge. The main argument presented in the second bail application was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The applicant's counsel contended that the offence in question was committed between 2004 and 2006, but the schedule of offences under the PMLA Act was effective from 2005 to 2009 and did not include certain sections of the Indian Penal Code. The counsel argued that only the provisions of the law applicable before 1.6.2009 should be considered in this case. Reference was made to a judgment of the Karnataka High Court to support this argument. The Union of India opposed the bail application, stating that the same ground had been raised in the first application, which was rejected earlier. The High Court noted that the ground raised in the second bail application had already been considered by the Single Judge in the first application, even though it was not explicitly mentioned in the rejection order. The Court concluded that no new ground was made out for granting bail to the applicant.

The High Court ultimately rejected the bail application of the applicant involved in a case arising from the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. However, the trial court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude it within eight months from the date of the High Court's order, provided there were no legal impediments. The office was instructed to send a certified copy of the order to the trial court for compliance.