2018 (4) TMI 1942 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is that out of money laundered she has purchased residential and agriculture property in Bhilwara - HELD THAT - Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner and the fact that complaint has been filed and property had already been attached and the custodial interrogation of petitioner is not required, the anticipatory bail is allowed. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Court within two weeks of this order - Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 45 (1) of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Special provision under Section 45 of the Act for females - Allegation of money laundering and purchase of properties - Opposition by Union of India - Anticipatory bail granted.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in response to Criminal Complaint No.1/2017 registered at the Special Sessions Judge in Jaipur under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for an offence under Section 45 (1) of the Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner, a female, was accused of purchasing residential and agriculture property in Bhilwara using laundered money. It was argued that due to the special provision under Section 45 of the Act for females and the attachment of properties by the Department, custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the complaint had already been filed, and the petitioner had been summoned by a non-bailable warrant.

The counsel representing the Union of India opposed the bail application, claiming that the petitioner and her husband were involved in money laundering activities amounting to Rs.1.39 crores. After considering the arguments presented by both sides, the court deliberated on the necessity of custodial interrogation given the circumstances. It was noted that the complaint had been filed, the properties were already attached, and there was no immediate requirement for custodial interrogation. Consequently, the court leaned towards granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

In light of the above considerations, the court allowed the Anticipatory Bail Application and directed the petitioner to surrender before the concerned Court within two weeks of the order. The concerned Court was instructed to release the petitioner on bail as per the appropriate bail bonds deemed fit by the Court.