9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1234 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of anticipatory bail - illegal unregulated collective investment scheme by collecting deposits from public without the approval of RBI/SEBI or any government agency under the name board of Real Estate Business - laundering the ill-gotten wealth which is acquired by duping the lakhs of gullible public in the guise of real estate business - HELD THAT - In the instant case major part of the investigation has been completed and the Chairman and other Directors of the Company were granted bails and in most of the cases the conditions imposed against the Directors while granting bail were relaxed. Though the respondent authorities have registered the case in the year 2018 a notice was issued for the first time in the year 2020 and that the petitioner has been cooperating with the authorities and attending before them along with required information as and when called for. The delay in issuing the notice after two years has not been properly explained by the respondent authorities - the application for anticipatory bail in case of P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT which was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent authorities was rejected on merits of the allegations and other materials and hence the facts and circumstances of that case are entirely different from the facts of the present case. Since the petitioner has been regularly attending before the respondent authorities as and when called for and cooperating with the investigation by furnishing required information; the main accused have already been arrested and their custodial interrogation has already been done by the respondent authorities; major part of the investigation has already been completed and the properties worth 4109.13 Crores have already been attached the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not required. In such circumstances granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain conditions is justifiable. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement Hyderabad within a period of fifteen days from today and on such surrender he shall be released on bail on -his executing a personal bond to the tune of 5, 00, 000/- with two sureties each to the like amount to his satisfaction - The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail on the terms and conditions imposed - application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Allegations of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 3. Investigation status and cooperation by the petitioner. 4. Applicability of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 5. Legal precedents and their relevance to the case. 6. Conditions for granting anticipatory bail. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Anticipatory Bail: The petitioner filed a Criminal Petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 2. Allegations of Money Laundering: The prosecution alleged that Agri Gold Company, led by its directors, ran an illegal unregulated collective investment scheme, collecting ?6380.00 Crores from 19,18,865 depositors. The funds were purportedly diverted to various industries without the knowledge of the depositors, constituting money laundering and misappropriation of public funds. 3. Investigation Status and Cooperation by the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that he had been cooperating with the investigation and attending summons. He highlighted that the main accused had already been arrested, and significant parts of the investigation, including the attachment of properties worth ?4109.13 Crores, had been completed. He contended that there was no necessity for his custodial interrogation. 4. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA: The court noted the Supreme Court's ruling in *Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India* (2018) 11 SCC 1, which held that the provisions of Section 45 of PMLA do not apply to Section 438 Cr.P.C. proceedings. The court further referenced the judgment in *Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others* 2020 SCC Online SC 98, emphasizing that anticipatory bail should not be denied merely due to the nature of the offence. 5. Legal Precedents: The petitioner cited several judgments, including *Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab* (1980) 2 SCC 565 and *Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd.* 2012 (3) ALT (Crl.) 44 (SC), to support his plea for anticipatory bail. The respondent, however, relied on *P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement* (2019) 9 SCC 24, arguing that economic offences warrant custodial interrogation. 6. Conditions for Granting Anticipatory Bail: The court, considering the cooperation of the petitioner and the completion of significant parts of the investigation, found it justifiable to grant anticipatory bail with specific conditions to ensure the petitioner's availability for further investigation. Conclusion: The Criminal Petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail with the following conditions: - The petitioner must surrender before the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad, and execute a personal bond of ?5,00,000/- with two sureties. - The petitioner must appear before the respondent authorities thrice a week until the investigation is completed. - The petitioner must surrender his passport and not leave India without court permission. - The petitioner must not influence any witnesses or tamper with evidence. - Compliance with Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory. This detailed analysis comprehensively covers the issues involved in the judgment while retaining the original legal terminology and significant phrases.
|
