2023 (9) TMI 1414 - HC - Money Laundering

Second bail application for grant of anticipatory bail - illegally earned the money and purchased the property in the name of his wife - HELD THAT - Since the matter is related to the economic offences containing property worth Rs.1,55,87,861/-, the applicant cannot be released under the provisions of anticipatory bail and therefore, anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Second bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail in a case related to offenses u/s 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The judgment deals with a second bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail by an individual apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No. 179/2018 dated 06.08.2018. The allegations involve illegal earnings and property purchases by the applicant's husband, leading to suspicions regarding the applicant's income sources. The applicant is accused of offenses u/s 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 due to unexplained wealth acquisition.

The applicant's counsel argued that the earlier application was withdrawn with directions for compliance with Supreme Court judgments, but as the police authority failed to adhere to these directions, a new application was filed seeking anticipatory bail. The delay in trial conclusion was highlighted as a reason for seeking relief through anticipatory bail due to the prolonged legal process.

The Respondent, represented by the Deputy Solicitor General, opposed the bail application citing the inability of the applicant to explain the sources of income, which is crucial in such cases involving financial offenses. The Respondent contended that anticipatory bail should not be granted in such circumstances where income sources are not satisfactorily explained.

The Court considered the provisions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, emphasizing that offenses under this Act are cognizable and non-bailable unless specific conditions are met. The Court noted that the applicant's previous application was dismissed as withdrawn, and despite subsequent rejections by the trial court, a fresh application was filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

In light of legal precedents, including the case of "P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 24," the Court highlighted the exceptional nature of pre-arrest bail, especially in cases of economic offenses. Citing "Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain" and "Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy and Another 2022 SC 1862," the Court emphasized the cautious approach required in granting anticipatory bail in economic offense cases. Considering the substantial property value involved in this case, amounting to Rs.1,55,87,861/-, the Court concluded that anticipatory bail cannot be granted, leading to the dismissal of the application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.