2022 (12) TMI 1419 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - bungling and misappropriation of funds and cheating etc - supply of medicines at exorbitant price causing huge loss to the Government - HELD THAT - Looking at the nature of offence and also taking note of the fact that the economic offences constitute/form a different class and while considering the bail application of an accused in such an offence it is required to be visited differently than the offences under the IPC this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail. This anticipatory bail application is therefore rejected. However it is provided that if the accused-applicant surrenders and applies for regular bail within seven days from today the same shall be considered preferably on the same day keeping in mind that the accused-applicant was not arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement invoking the powers under Section 19 of the PMLA during the investigation and he had cooperated with the investigation - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Application under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) read with Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) filed by accused-applicant in anticipation of arrest. Consideration of bail application under PMLA against accused-applicant involved in misappropriation of funds and cheating. Interpretation of Section 45 of PMLA regarding conditions for considering regular bail/anticipatory bail. Comparison of economic offences with offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in bail applications. Analysis of accused-applicant's cooperation during investigation and attachment of properties acquired from proceeds of crime. Rejection of anticipatory bail application and provision for surrender and regular bail application within seven days.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The accused-applicant filed an application under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) along with Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in anticipation of arrest. The application was related to Special Case No. 63 of 2022 under PMLA, arising from misappropriation of government funds meant for health facilities. The accused-applicant was implicated for supplying medicines at exorbitant prices, causing substantial loss to the government. The accused-applicant argued that he had cooperated during the investigation and had already deposited a significant amount as directed by the High Court and the Supreme Court for bail.

2. The accused-applicant contended that the conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA for considering regular bail/anticipatory bail did not apply to him as the amount involved in the alleged embezzlement was less than Rs. 1 Crore. Citing legal precedents, the accused-applicant sought anticipatory bail based on the premise that he had not been arrested during the investigation and the offence punishable was less than 7 years. The accused-applicant emphasized his compliance with the bail conditions set by higher courts and his cooperation with the investigative authorities.

3. On the other hand, the respondent, Directorate of Enforcement, argued that the total scam involved several hundred crores, and at the time of the offence, the lower limit under Section 45 of the PMLA was Rs. 30 Lac. The respondent highlighted the distinct nature of economic offences and the need for a different approach in bail applications for such offences compared to those under the IPC. The respondent pointed out that properties acquired from proceeds of crime had been attached, indicating the seriousness of the allegations against the accused-applicant.

4. The Court considered the submissions of both parties and acknowledged the unique nature of economic offences, requiring a different approach in bail applications compared to conventional offences under the IPC. Considering the gravity of the offence and the specific circumstances of the case, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of the accused-applicant. However, the Court provided an opportunity for the accused-applicant to surrender and apply for regular bail within seven days, emphasizing the importance of presenting all legal arguments before the trial court for bail consideration.

5. In conclusion, the Court's decision to reject the anticipatory bail application was based on the nature of the offence, the amount involved, and the distinct classification of economic offences. The accused-applicant was given the option to surrender and seek regular bail within a specified timeframe, with a reminder to present all relevant legal aspects for the trial court's consideration. The judgment highlighted the complexities of economic offences and the need for a nuanced approach in bail proceedings for such cases.