2023 (2) TMI 1239 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - ill-gotten immovable property generated through illegal activities related to scheduled offence - HELD THAT - In the present case the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with the complaint case by the respondent for offence of money-laundering under Section 3 of PMLA Act and punishable under Section 4 of the Act. Though supplementary charge sheet has been filed but once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with the offence of PMLA Act the underlying principles and rigour of Section 45 of the Act gets triggered. The record submitted by the respondents prima facie shows nexus between the primary offender and the applicant who is found to be an accessory to money-laundering. From the material collected by the Investigating Agency considering the nature of allegations and the seriousness of offence alleged prima facie at this stage it cannot be said that the applicant has not committed any offence alleged against him. The Supreme Court in the case of P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT while dismissing the anticipatory bail application has observed that power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. being an extra- ordinary remedy has to be exercised sparingly more so in cases of economic offences which stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. Thus no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly this application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with a complaint for money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
1. The applicant filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. due to the fear of arrest in connection with a money laundering case under the PMLA Act.
2. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in laundering ill-gotten property with the Joshi family, generated through illegal activities.
3. The applicant claimed innocence, stating that he entered a partnership without knowledge of the property's illegal origin and cooperated with investigations.
4. The applicant argued that a non-bailable warrant was issued hastily, despite his cooperation and compliance with investigative procedures.
5. The applicant contended that he was not involved in money laundering and cited previous cases to support his claim for anticipatory bail.
6. The respondent opposed the bail application, asserting that the applicant was an accessory to money laundering and benefited from the proceeds of crime.
7. The respondent highlighted the ongoing investigations and nexus between the applicant and the principal offenders, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence.
8. The respondent argued that the offence under the PMLA Act is non-bailable and cognizable, requiring strict adherence to the provisions of Section 45 of the Act.
9. The Court considered the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA Act, emphasizing the need for the Public Prosecutor's opposition and satisfaction of the court before granting bail.
10. The Court found a prima facie nexus between the applicant and the primary offender in the money laundering case, denying anticipatory bail based on the seriousness of the allegations.
11. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary despite the lack of previous arrest during the investigation, given the premeditated nature of economic offences affecting society.
12. Citing precedent, the Court emphasized the cautious use of anticipatory bail in economic offence cases due to their impact on the societal economic fabric.
13. After evaluating the facts and circumstances, the Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail, concluding that no grounds existed for granting relief to the applicant.