9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1274 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Seeking grant anticipatory bail - offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and punishable under Section 4 of the said Act - HELD THAT - The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail - (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of the case and on its own merits. The discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. A careful reading of the legal position and in the light of the circumstances of the case on hand, which clearly indicates that the 1st respondent has a doubt regarding the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the crime and she is being summoned for disclosure and in case of her non-disclosure of any material, on the pretext of non-co-operation, the 1st respondent may proceed to arrest her. The petitioner is a woman and she is having two minor children, whom she has to look after. Further, major part of the investigation has been completed with respect to the accounts and documents, which have already been seized. Hence, there may not be a chance of tampering with the investigation at this stage, because as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that a criminal case has already been filed and the same is pending before the Special Court at Bhopal. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Hyderabad, within a period of fifteen days from today, and on such surrender, she shall be released on bail on her executing a personal bond to the tune of ₹ 5,00,000/- with two sureties each to the like amount to his satisfaction - Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the anticipatory bail petition. 2. Applicability of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to anticipatory bail. 3. Grounds for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 4. Allegations and involvement of the petitioner in the money laundering case. 5. Conditions for granting anticipatory bail. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the anticipatory bail petition: The High Court addressed the objection regarding its jurisdiction to entertain the anticipatory bail petition without first approaching the Special Court. It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Barun Chandra Thakur v. Central Bureau of Investigation* (2018) and the Chattisgarh High Court's decision in *Anil Tuteja v. The Director, Directorate of Enforcement*, which affirmed that both the High Court and the Court of Session have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the High Court found that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 2. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA to anticipatory bail: The High Court examined the applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail. The Supreme Court in *Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India* (2018) held that the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA do not apply to anticipatory bail proceedings under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the High Court ruled that Section 45 of the PMLA does not bar the grant of anticipatory bail in the present case. 3. Grounds for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.: The High Court considered the principles laid down in *Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)* (2020) regarding the purpose and function of anticipatory bail. The Court noted that anticipatory bail is intended to prevent harassment or humiliation of the accused. The Court also referred to the decision in *P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement* (2019), emphasizing that the gravity of the offence and the nature of the allegations must be considered. The Court observed that the petitioner, being a woman with two minor children, had a reasonable apprehension of arrest, and there was no concrete evidence against her at this stage. 4. Allegations and involvement of the petitioner in the money laundering case: The High Court scrutinized the allegations against the petitioner, who was summoned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the money laundering investigation. The petitioner argued that she was not involved in the day-to-day activities of the companies under investigation and had no criminal antecedents. The Court noted that while the ED suspected her involvement, there was no concrete evidence to substantiate her direct involvement in the alleged offences. The Court also considered that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation so far and that the major part of the investigation had been completed. 5. Conditions for granting anticipatory bail: The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, imposing several conditions to ensure her cooperation with the investigation and prevent any tampering with evidence. The conditions included: - Surrendering before the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, within fifteen days and executing a personal bond of ?5,00,000/- with two sureties. - Appearing before the respondent authorities on the 1st and 3rd Monday of every month until the investigation is completed. - Surrendering her passport and not leaving India without prior permission of the Court. - Not influencing or threatening any person acquainted with the facts of the case. - Complying with other conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail, considering her personal circumstances, lack of concrete evidence against her, and the completion of a significant part of the investigation. The Court imposed stringent conditions to ensure her cooperation with the ongoing investigation.
|
