2020 (7) TMI 785 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Bribery - tainted money of scheduled offence of corruption in mining department of the State Government of Rajasthan - offence under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - HELD THAT - Without making any comment on its order suffice it to note the relevant legal position expounded in above referred judgments that while granting or refusing bail to an accused in a particular case the role of every accused in the alleged crime along with other relevant factors are to be considered. A particular accused cannot claim to be released on bail only on the ground of grant of bail to other co-accused person. Accordingly even the same bench in a given case grants bail to an accused and refuses to another one having different footings. In the instant case other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate bench of this court but the case of present applicants is not similar to those co-accused persons looking to their major role in the alleged crime the evidence collected against them their conduct of evading trial and other relevant factors. Without expressing any opinion to the merits of the case, suffice it to say that the record of the case prima facie reveals that being Principle Secretary of Mining Department accused Ashok Singhvi has been main kingpin of the conspiracy in furtherance of which a huge amount of 2.55 crores was collected as bribe. Ample evidence including telephone recording call details is available on the record which very well connects him with the crime. In view of settled legal position and the fact of finality of cognizance order in this case such contentions of applicants are not tenable that they are entitled for bail due to bail in scheduled offence or they were not arrested during the course of investigation - the case of both the present accused applicants cannot be said to be similar to that of those co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail by coordinate bench of this court therefore keeping in view the specific major role of the present accused applicants strong evidence available against them their conduct to evade the trial probable impact on the Society on granting bail to present accused applicants having distinct status in this economic offence of severe nature of rampant corruption in Government departments and all other relevant factors as envisaged in PML Act both the present applicants do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving money laundering and corruption in the mining department of the State Government of Rajasthan.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Prima Facie Case and Legal Position on Bail in Economic Offences:
- The accused applicants sought bail based on parity with co-accused persons already granted bail. However, the ASG argued that bail in economic offences must be considered differently due to their impact on the economy and society. The ASG emphasized that bail cannot be granted solely on the ground of parity and highlighted the importance of considering the prima facie case, role of each accused, and relevant factors.

2. Role of Accused Applicants and Evidence Against Them:
- The accused applicants were alleged to be the kingpins of the conspiracy, with one holding a high-ranking government position misused for bribery. Significant amounts of tainted money were involved, and evidence such as call recordings and bank details linked them to the crime. The ASG argued that their conduct, including evading trial and delayed surrender, set them apart from other co-accused persons.

3. Judicial Discipline and Consideration of Individual Cases:
- The judgment emphasized the need for judicial discipline in following precedents but noted that each accused's role and circumstances must be individually assessed when granting bail. The court highlighted that bail cannot be claimed solely on the basis of co-accused persons being granted bail, especially when the accused have different roles and levels of involvement in the alleged crime.

4. Decision and Dismissal of Bail Applications:
- After considering the arguments from both sides and analyzing the legal positions, the court dismissed the bail applications of the accused applicants. The court concluded that the applicants' major roles in the crime, strong evidence against them, conduct of evading trial, and the severe nature of the economic offence warranted denial of bail. The judgment emphasized that the applicants did not deserve bail based on the specific circumstances of the case, despite bail being granted to some co-accused persons.

This detailed analysis reflects the court's thorough consideration of the legal principles surrounding bail in economic offences, the individual roles of the accused applicants, and the need to assess each case independently when determining bail eligibility.