2022 (11) TMI 1326 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking bail in anticipation of arrest of the accused-applicants - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - economic offences - Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2022 - HELD THAT - It is well settled that anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been en-roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same is to be exercised sparingly. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail. Considering the rigour of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2022 and the contents of the complaint, this Court is of the view that the accused-applicants are not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail - all the anticipatory bail applications are rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in anticipation of arrest in a complaint Case related to money laundering under PMLA Act.

Analysis:
The case involves applications seeking bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in anticipation of arrest in a complaint Case No.95 of 2019 related to money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The FIR was registered by the CBI against several individuals for offenses under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act concerning irregularities in fund utilization for hospital upgradation in Uttar Pradesh. The accused were alleged to have conspired to misappropriate funds and allocate work illegally to certain private firms, causing a loss to the state exchequer. The offenses mentioned in the FIR were scheduled offenses under the PMLA, leading to the initiation of inquiries and subsequent attachment of proceeds of crime.

The investigation revealed proceeds of crime attached in relation to various individuals and companies, confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The accused, including a Director of C&DS, were accused of misappropriating funds allocated for hospital upgradation, with only a portion spent on the intended purpose. The complaint detailed the roles and actions of the accused in furthering the criminal conspiracy, leading to the commission of offenses under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act.

During the bail hearing, arguments were presented by both sides. The defense highlighted that the accused had cooperated during the investigation, and the attachment order had been stayed. However, the Enforcement Directorate contended that there was sufficient evidence linking the accused to money laundering offenses, justifying their involvement. It was noted that anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly, especially in economic offenses due to their impact on society's economic fabric.

Ultimately, the Court rejected all anticipatory bail applications, citing the stringent provisions of the PMLA Act and the nature of the offenses. The accused were granted time to surrender and apply for regular bail, ensuring expeditious consideration of their bail applications without prejudice.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in the case, including the nature of the offenses, the evidence presented during the investigation, and the considerations for granting anticipatory bail under the PMLA Act.