2017 (11) TMI 1973 - HC - Money Laundering

Rejection of extension of ED Custody remand of the respondent made by the petitioner - HELD THAT - The trial court has denied further custody remand for sufficient reasons. A careful perusal of the application indicates that primarily the plea taken by the petitioner has been that the respondent did not cooperate in investigation during this nine days period. He gave evasive replies and wasted time by making false allegations that he was beaten by the officials of the petitioner. This can be gathered from the application. This cannot be sufficient enough to keep the accused in ED custody. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Extension of custody remand
2. Cooperation in investigation
3. Grounds for denial of further custody remand

Extension of Custody Remand:
The petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of the extension of 'ED Custody' remand of the respondent by the Special Judge, PMLA. Initially, a 7-day custody remand was granted, followed by an application for a further 7-day extension, which was partially granted by the trial court. A third application was then filed for extending the custody remand to complete the period of 15 days as per the Cr.P.C. The grounds for the extension included lack of cooperation by the respondent in the investigation, evasion in answering questions, the need for time to confront the respondent with new documents and electronic evidence, and the unavailability of other accused persons who were absconding. However, the Special Judge noted that similar grounds had been presented in previous applications and that the reasons provided were not sufficient to warrant further custody.

Cooperation in Investigation:
The petitioner argued that the respondent had not cooperated during the nine days of custody, giving evasive replies and making false allegations of being beaten. The petitioner contended that this behavior justified the extension of custody. However, the court found that the respondent had already been interrogated and had provided a statement even before his arrest. The court held that the time spent in custody was sufficient for interrogation, and the reasons presented by the petitioner did not justify further ED custody.

Grounds for Denial of Further Custody Remand:
Upon reviewing the application for extension of custody and the impugned order, the court concluded that the trial court had validly denied further custody remand. The court highlighted that lack of cooperation and the unavailability of other accused persons were not adequate grounds for extending custody. The court also found that the vague references to new documents and electronic evidence, without specific details on when and from where they were obtained, did not justify the extension of custody. Consequently, the petition was dismissed based on the insufficiency of the reasons provided for the extension of custody.