2022 (8) TMI 1461 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - assisting the main accused in commission of the offence - co-accused persons have been already granted anticipatory bail - HELD THAT - Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that complaint has already been filed; co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 23.8.2022 in MCRCA No.949/2022; there is no apprehension of the applicant absconding or tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses and that conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under Section 438 of CrPC for anticipatory bail in connection with ED Complaint Case.
2. Allegation of assisting in money laundering offense.
3. Applicant's innocence and health condition.
4. Arguments from both sides.
5. Granting of anticipatory bail by the Court.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a second application filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by the applicant apprehending arrest in connection with ED Complaint Case No.01/2018 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The earlier application was withdrawn and dismissed.

2. The allegation against the applicant involves assisting the main accused in a money laundering offense by secretly keeping a part of illegally obtained money at his home while working as a Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) under the main accused. The amount involved was Rs. 7 crores.

3. The applicant, through his counsel, asserts innocence and being falsely implicated in the crime. It is highlighted that the applicant's name was not initially mentioned in the ECIR but was later disclosed in a statement under Section 50 of the PMLA Act. Additionally, the applicant's health condition, diagnosed with cancer of the head and neck, is emphasized. The applicant's reputation and the potential irreparable loss upon arrest are also stressed.

4. The arguments presented by both sides are noted, with the respondent's counsel vehemently opposing the bail application, while the applicant's counsel advocating for anticipatory bail based on innocence, health condition, and lack of flight risk or tampering with evidence.

5. After hearing both parties and examining the case diary, the Court, considering the circumstances, the filing of the complaint, and the grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused individuals, decides to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. The Court sets specific terms and conditions, including a personal bond, availability for interrogation, restrictions on leaving the headquarters without permission, and other obligations to ensure fair trial proceedings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Court's decision to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in the money laundering case.