2021 (6) TMI 1098 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking to grant anticipatory bail - cheating and other offences - fraudulent activity in regard to the sanction of loans - HELD THAT - A perusal of the material on record would show that basing on the complaints lodged by the I.F.C.I. alleging cheating and other offences in respect of to V.N.R. Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad and Sri Krishna Stockists and Traders Private Limited, Rajahmundry, C.B.I., BSFC, Bangalore, registered two cases. Initially the petitioner was not made as an accused in the complaints, but in the charge sheets filed in both the cases, the name of the petitioner was shown as A.3 and A.5 respectively. The petitioner was arrested and he was released on bail in the said cases. The record further discloses that in the year 2017 itself, the S.F.I.O., issued notice to the petitioner to appear before the S.F.I.O. and in compliance of the said notice, the petitioner had appeared and his statement was recorded. In the year 2020, the S.F.I.O. again issued summons to the petitioner directing him to appear before the S.F.I.O. on 09.11.2020 and apprehending arrest in connection with the said summons, the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.5980 of 2020 and this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order dated 18.03.2021. Admittedly, entire investigation has been completed and charge sheets were filed by the C.B.I., BSFC, Bangalore and the C.B.I. and seized all the documents connected to the subject loan transactions and those documents were filed along with the charge sheets. Hence, there may not be a chance of tampering with the investigation at this stage. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since the petitioner has already been appeared before the S.F.I.O., in compliance with the notice, dated 18.07.2017 and his statement has already been recorded; entire investigation has already been completed and charge sheets were also filed in both the complaints, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner at present may not be required. In such circumstances, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain conditions is justifiable - petition allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Implications of summons issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Petitioner's involvement and alleged false implication in fraudulent activities.
4. Petitioner's cooperation with previous investigations and compliance with legal procedures.
5. Considerations for granting anticipatory bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner filed a Criminal Petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with summons issued by the respondent agency. The court examined the purpose, object, and function of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., referencing the Supreme Court's observations in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, which emphasize that anticipatory bail is meant to prevent harassment or humiliation but does not exempt the accused from appearing before the court after the investigation is complete and a charge sheet is filed.

2. Implications of Summons Issued under the P.M.L. Act:
The respondent agency issued summons to the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (P.M.L. Act), directing him to appear in connection with an ongoing investigation. The respondent argued that proceedings under the P.M.L. Act are independent of those under the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, with the primary objective being to trace and attach the proceeds of crime. The petitioner contended that the summons were an arm-twisting method and that any statement recorded could prejudice his defense.

3. Petitioner's Involvement and Alleged False Implication:
The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting that he was falsely implicated and not associated with any fraudulent activity regarding the sanction of loans. He highlighted that the loans were sanctioned following norms and guidelines, and the matter was already under adjudication by a competent criminal court. The petitioner further argued that he did not obtain any pecuniary advantage or possess assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

4. Petitioner's Cooperation with Previous Investigations:
The petitioner emphasized his cooperation with previous investigations, including appearing before the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (S.F.I.O.) and complying with summons issued in 2017 and 2020. He also noted that he was granted anticipatory bail by the court in connection with earlier summons. The respondent, however, maintained that there was ample incriminating evidence against the petitioner, indicating his involvement in money laundering and receipt of bribes.

5. Considerations for Granting Anticipatory Bail:
The court considered several factors while deciding on the application for anticipatory bail, including the nature of the accusation, severity of potential punishment, possibility of tampering with evidence, and the petitioner's character and behavior. The court noted that the entire investigation had been completed, and charge sheets were filed, reducing the likelihood of tampering with the investigation. Given the petitioner's previous compliance with legal procedures and the absence of any immediate need for custodial interrogation, the court found it justifiable to grant anticipatory bail with specific conditions.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the Criminal Petition, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner under specific terms and conditions, including surrendering before the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, executing a personal bond, surrendering his passport, and not leaving the country without prior permission. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate with the investigation and comply with the conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.

← Previous Next →