2021 (11) TMI 1110 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - scheduled offences - Seeking grant of bail - bail sought on the ground of serious and deadly ailments - Section 120B, 418, 420, 421, 467, 471 IPC - HELD THAT - It is clear that initially the FIR was registered in which the co-ordinate bench of this Court on 13.08.2018 bailed out the applicant and during his arrest, the E.D. on 11.09.2017 moved the present complaint bearing no ECIR/01/ALSZO/2017 and re-affected his arrest on 10.11.2020 and since then he is in jail. During this period, the Department is progressing its investigation with snail's speed but seems to have filed the charge sheet. The ailing applicant is behind the bars under trial for last more than year. So far as apprehension of fleeing away is concerned, seems to be unfounded and without any basis. The Enforcement Directorate is at the fullest liberty to make seizure the applicant's GREY accounts after grilling him as per the law. But, he cannot be put behind the bars for unlimited period. The applicant is entitled for bail keeping in view that he is suffering from deadly ailments of Cancer and accordingly, the applicant- Kamal Ahsan be released on bail in the case on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25 lacs and two sureties to the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with the conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application for an applicant facing prosecution under Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
The applicant, facing prosecution under the Money Laundering Act, 2002, filed a bail application citing serious health issues, including cancer. The applicant was accused of fraudulent transactions amounting to Rs. 22.39 crores from an institution's accounts. The Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) invoked scheduled offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, leading to the applicant's arrest. The applicant's counsel argued for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, due to the applicant's health conditions, referencing relevant case laws.

The court considered the applicant's health condition, having undergone cancer surgery and facing deadly ailments. The applicant had already spent considerable time in jail and was suffering from cancer. The E.D. opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the alleged offense and the risk of the applicant fleeing the country. The court noted the slow progress of the investigation and the recovery of only a portion of the embezzled amount. The court found the apprehension of the applicant fleeing to be unfounded and granted bail, imposing conditions to ensure the applicant's availability and trial cooperation.

In the judgment, the court granted bail to the applicant, considering his health condition and the time spent in jail. The court required the applicant to furnish a personal bond and sureties, along with imposing conditions to prevent flight risk and ensure trial cooperation. The court emphasized the need for the trial to proceed promptly and independently, unaffected by the bail decision.