9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1412 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - tampering with the e-Tender - price bid changed to make the lowest bidders - various tenders of different Government Departments were tampered and changed to price bid of specific Applicant Companies due to which these companies became the lowest bidder and their tender got accepted and thus these companies got undue benefits - HELD THAT - A three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v.. State (N CT of Delhi) and others 2020 (1) TMI 1193 - SUPREME COURT while dealing with the purpose object and function of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. observed that Once the investigation makes out a case against him and he is included as an accused in the charge-sheet the accused has to surrender to the custody of the Court and pray for regular bail. On the strength of an order granting anticipatory bail an accused against whom charge has been framed cannot avoid appearing before the trial Court. Coming to the merits of the case it is the apprehension of the petitioner that under the guise of summoning him the 1st respondent is preparing a ground for his arrest. Though the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent is that such apprehension is baseless it is significant to note from Para No.13 of the Counter filed by the 1st respondent that the investigation has established that there is a nexus between the petitioner and Mr.Srinivasa Raju Mantena and same needs to be investigated in detail - As per the principles laid down in P.Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT in terms of section 45 of the P.M.L. Act this Court need to arrive at the satisfaction that (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence he/she is charged with; and further that (ii) he/she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The application for anticipatory bail in the case of P.Chidambaram 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT was rejected on merits of the allegations and other material. It is trite law that in case of economic offences which are having an impact on the society the Court must be very slow in exercising the discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. But on perusal of the factual matrix of the present case prima facie there is no material to come to the conclusion that the act of the petitioner is having an impact on the financial status of the Country and in that light the ratio laid down in P.Chidambaram s case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail - Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations of money laundering under Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). 3. Involvement in tampering of e-tenders in Madhya Pradesh. 4. Investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). 5. Legal precedents and principles for granting anticipatory bail. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, fearing arrest in connection with an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) related to money laundering charges. The petitioner argued that he had no criminal antecedents and belonged to a respectable family. He was a retired IAS Officer with a distinguished career, including positions such as Additional Chief Secretary and Chief Secretary for the Government of Madhya Pradesh. 2. Allegations of Money Laundering under Section 3 and 4 of PMLA: The case involved allegations of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, punishable under Section 4 of the same Act. The prosecution's case was based on an FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Bhopal, which alleged tampering of e-tenders to benefit certain companies, leading to undue financial gains. 3. Involvement in Tampering of E-Tenders in Madhya Pradesh: The FIR detailed unauthorized access and tampering of e-tenders on the Madhya Pradesh e-Procurement Portal, managed by MPSEDC and contracted to M/s. Antares Systems Limited and M/s. Tata Consultancy Services (TCS). The tampering allegedly made specific companies the lowest bidders, resulting in their tenders being accepted. The investigation revealed that the e-portal system was hacked, and unauthorized access was made through specific IP addresses linked to individuals involved in the scam. 4. Investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED): The ED initiated an investigation under the PMLA based on the FIR by EOW, Bhopal. The ED argued that the petitioner was summoned for questioning and that there was no immediate threat of arrest. The ED contended that anticipatory bail should not be granted as it would hinder the investigation. They emphasized the seriousness of money laundering, which poses a threat to financial systems and national integrity. The ED also highlighted the need for a thorough investigation to trace the proceeds of crime and prosecute those involved. 5. Legal Precedents and Principles for Granting Anticipatory Bail: The court considered various legal precedents and principles for granting anticipatory bail. It referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, which emphasized that anticipatory bail should not exempt an accused from surrendering to the court after the investigation. The court also considered the Supreme Court's ruling in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, which held that the stringent conditions under Section 45 of PMLA do not apply to anticipatory bail proceedings under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail. It noted that the petitioner was a retired employee with a permanent residence in Hyderabad, and major parts of the investigation had been completed. The court imposed specific conditions for granting anticipatory bail, including surrendering before the ED, appearing before the authorities on specified dates, surrendering the passport, and not influencing witnesses or tampering with the investigation. The court emphasized that each case must be considered on its merits, and the discretion to grant bail should be exercised judiciously.
|
