9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1428 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - predicate offence - independent investigation has been conducted by the E.D. or not - presence of corroborative evidences or not - HELD THAT - Notably, the present applicant has properly cooperated with the investigation being conducted by the CBI and has never flouted the process of law. Thereafter, on the basis of aforesaid investigation of the CBI, E.D. started recording statement of some persons including the present applicant as no independent investigation has been conducted by the E.D. and the present applicant has been summoned to record his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 on various dates i.e. 25.05.2018, 07.06.2018, 26.06.2018, 23.07.2018 and 19.06.2019. It is not a case of the E.D. that the present applicant has ever flouted the process of the law or he did not appear to record his statement on the aforesaid dates. The present applicant has been implicated on the basis of statement of one Sri Amit Yadav, the Contractor, which was recorded by the E.D. on 29.01.2019 and 05.02.2019 wherein he has stated that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 15 lakh cash from the Bank through his self cheque and paid this amount to the present applicant but there is no eye witness/witness/document of any kind whatsoever to suggest that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 15 lakh has been given to the present applicant. Since no material has been filed with the counter affidavit of the opposite party to suggest that the allegation so levelled against the present applicant by Sri Amit Yadav, the Contractor, has been verified or corroborated and during the course of the arguments, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party has been asked to demonstrate the Court that the E.D. is having any corroborative material or any piece of material suggesting the involvement of the present applicant in accepting a sum of Rs. 15 lakh, except the bald allegation of Sri Amit Yadav through his statement, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava could not demonstrate anything suggesting, prima facie, involvement of the present applicant. However, trial proceedings are going on and the allegations may be proved or disproved before the learned trial court by adducing the evidences from both the sides, therefore, I am not giving any finding on this point inasmuch as this is the domain of the learned trial court to conduct and conclude the trial independently strictly in accordance with law and without being influenced from any observation of this order. The twin requirements of Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 are satisfied inasmuch as the Public Prosecutor has been given ample opportunity to establish his case as the counter affidavit so filed and his arguments so advanced have been considered. Further, since thorough investigation has been conducted by the CBI pursuant to one FIR wherein the present applicant was accused and when nothing incriminating has been found against the present applicant, he has not been charge sheeted. The E.D. has not conducted its independent investigation and has reiterated the investigation of the CBI, therefore, prima facie, it appears that the present applicant is not guilty of such offence and being an old aged retired employee, his liberty may be protected. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Siddh Narain Sharma shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid complaint case number till conclusion of trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each before the court concerned with the conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Apprehension of arrest under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 2. Non-filing of charge sheet by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 3. Allegations based on the statement of a co-accused. 4. Cooperation with the investigation. 5. Application of Section 45 of PMLA. 6. Legal precedents regarding anticipatory bail. Detailed Analysis: 1. Apprehension of Arrest under PMLA: The applicant is apprehending arrest in Complaint Case No. 1003 of 2021 under Sections 3/4 of the PMLA, 2002. The Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) initiated proceedings based on an FIR by the CBI. Despite no incriminating evidence against the applicant by the CBI, the E.D. continued to summon the applicant for statements. 2. Non-filing of Charge Sheet by CBI: The CBI lodged an FIR on 30.11.2017 against multiple persons, including the applicant. After thorough investigation, the CBI did not file a charge sheet against the applicant, indicating no incriminating evidence was found. 3. Allegations Based on the Statement of a Co-accused: The E.D. relied on statements from a contractor, Amit Yadav, who alleged that he paid Rs. 15 lakh to the applicant. However, the applicant was not confronted with this statement during his interrogation, and no corroborative evidence was found to support this claim. 4. Cooperation with the Investigation: The applicant, a retired Chief Engineer, cooperated fully with the investigation, appearing before the E.D. on multiple dates. His cooperation and lack of any criminal history were emphasized as reasons against the need for custodial interrogation. 5. Application of Section 45 of PMLA: The opposition cited Section 45 of PMLA, arguing that the applicant should not be granted bail. However, the court noted that the twin conditions of Section 45 were satisfied as the Public Prosecutor was given ample opportunity to oppose the bail, and no substantial evidence suggested the applicant's guilt. 6. Legal Precedents Regarding Anticipatory Bail: The court referred to several legal precedents, including the judgments in Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate vs. V.C. Mohan and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., which emphasize the stringent conditions under PMLA but also recognize the need to protect individual liberty when no concrete evidence is presented. The court also cited the case of Siddharth vs. State of U.P., which supports granting bail when the accused has cooperated with the investigation. Conclusion: The court concluded that the applicant's liberty should be protected due to the lack of incriminating evidence, his cooperation with the investigation, and the absence of any criminal history. The anticipatory bail application was allowed, with conditions to ensure the applicant's compliance with the judicial process. Order: The applicant is granted anticipatory bail with conditions, including furnishing a personal bond, not leaving India without permission, not intimidating witnesses, and appearing before the trial court as required. The court emphasized that any breach of these conditions could result in the cancellation of bail.
|
