2022 (4) TMI 1473 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail - fraudulent transaction of transfer of the two units of Mack Star in Kaledonia Building to M/s Viva Holdings without payment of consideration - HELD THAT - It may be mentioned that primary allegations are about the alleged conspiracy between the officials of Yes Bank and the officials of HDIL of misuse of loans given by Yes bank during the period from 2011 to 2016. The role of the applicant, if any, is subsequent to the two agreements dated 29.06.2017. At the cost of repetition, it is necessary to emphasise that the only role is that the applicant knowingly ignored the non-encashment of the cheques by Mack Star. The other two allegations are about furnishing of an incorrect address and the deletion of the data from the mobile phone and the sale of laptop in order to destroy evidence. In this case, the Investigating Agency did not arrest Sarang Wadhaawan and as a result thereof, Sarang Wadhawan could secure bail from the Special Court by order dated 07.04.2022. The investigation qua the applicant is complete. The necessary seizure of the documents have been made. The two units have been attached. Thus, there are no justification to detain the applicant behind bar pending trial which may take some time for its conclusion. The Applicant be released on bail on execution of a PR Bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002.
2. Allegations of fraudulent transactions and conspiracy between officials of Yes Bank and M/s Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited.
3. Accused's involvement in the transfer of office units without payment of consideration.
4. Destruction of evidence and role in the preparation and auditing of company accounts.
5. Fairness of the investigating agency and selective arrests.
6. Comparison with the bail granted to co-accused.
7. Legal interpretation of the charges and evidence against the accused.
8. Justification for bail based on completed investigation and seizure of relevant documents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The bail application under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 was filed by the accused, a chartered accountant, charged under sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The accused was arrested and had previous bail applications rejected during the investigation and filing of the complaint. The accused sought bail citing completion of the investigation and lack of criminal antecedents.

2. The allegations stem from a complaint by the Directorate of Enforcement based on an FIR by the Central Bureau of Investigation against officials of Yes Bank and M/s Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited. The accused's role involved the transfer of office units without payment, destruction of evidence, and fraudulent transactions leading to money laundering.

3. The accused's involvement in the transfer of office units without payment of consideration forms a significant part of the allegations. The accused's role in preparing and auditing company accounts, including the fraudulent transactions, was highlighted as part of the prosecution's case.

4. Concerns were raised about the fairness of the investigating agency, selective arrests, and the treatment of co-accused in comparison to the accused. The accused's defense emphasized lack of direct involvement in the alleged transactions and the completion of the investigation.

5. The legal interpretation of the charges against the accused, including concealment of transactions, destruction of evidence, and failure to disclose relevant information, was thoroughly analyzed. The court considered the evidence presented and the specific role attributed to the accused in the alleged offenses.

6. The justification for bail was based on the completion of the investigation, seizure of relevant documents, and the lack of necessity for continued incarceration pending trial. The court compared the circumstances of the accused's case with that of co-accused who had been granted bail.

7. After considering all submissions and circumstances, the court granted bail to the accused under specific conditions, including a personal recognizance bond, surrender of passport, cooperation with the investigating agency, and non-interference with prosecution witnesses or evidence. Breach of conditions could lead to bail cancellation, with bail bonds to be furnished before the Special Court.