2022 (11) TMI 1375 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - undue pecuniary gain to by selling the items/goods on quite exorbitant rates in connivance and with the criminal conspiracy hatched with Chief Medical Officers - HELD THAT - Looking at the allegation against the accused-applicant, this Court is of the considered view that the satisfaction, as required under Section 45 of the Act, 2002, that the accused-applicant, prima facie, has not committed offence, is not made out. The provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. have limited scope to prevent humiliation of the applicant by having him so arrested that the accused-applicant is an innocent person and he has not, prima facie, committed the offence for which complaint and chargesheets have already been filed. There is no ground to take a different view from the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow - anticipatory bail application is accordingly rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Bail application under Section 438 CrPC read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in relation to the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) scam in Uttar Pradesh.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations and Background:
The accused-applicant sought bail in anticipation of arrest in connection with ECIR No.10/PMLA/LZO/2012 under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The case pertains to the NRHM scam in Uttar Pradesh, involving a significant amount of money. Following court orders, an FIR was registered, and the case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for investigation, during which several deaths occurred.

2. Allegations Against the Accused-Applicant:
The accused-applicant, as the proprietor of M/s Seva Enterprises, Lucknow, is accused of selling items at exorbitant rates in collusion with Chief Medical Officers, resulting in a loss of Rs.21,26,000 to the government exchequer. The CBI has filed a charge-sheet against the accused-applicant and co-accused, and the Enforcement Directorate has initiated proceedings under Section 45 of the Act, 2002.

3. Defense and Submissions:
The defense argued that the accused-applicant had deposited the alleged amount, had property attached by the Enforcement Directorate, was not arrested during the investigation, and had already been granted bail in related cases. Additionally, the accused's health condition was cited as a concern due to an advanced stage of illness.

4. Court's Decision:
The Court found that the satisfaction required under Section 45 of the Act, 2002, indicating that the accused-applicant had not prima facie committed the offense, was not established. The scope of Section 438 CrPC is limited to preventing the humiliation of an innocent person. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected, aligning with the decision of the Sessions Judge/Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow.

5. Trial Court's Direction:
While rejecting the anticipatory bail, the trial court was directed to expedite the consideration and decision on the regular bail application. Factors such as the accused's previous deposits, attached property, lack of arrest during investigation, previous bail grants, and health condition were to be taken into account during the bail application process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, allegations, defense arguments, court decision, and the trial court's direction, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings related to the bail application in the NRHM scam case.