2023 (2) TMI 1279 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of bail - Money Laundering - opening of 446 numbers of bank accounts of various persons in connivance with the brothers of Babulal Agrawal and later on, the entire amount was transferred to M/s Prime Ispat Limited through 13 shell companies - allegations against the present applicants are that they helped the main accused persons and they were involved in the commission of the crime in question - HELD THAT - From bare reading of the Section 45 of the Act of 2002, it appears that the court has to record finding with regard to grant of an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor and if the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court has to record its satisfaction to the effect that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, before passing an order of release of an accused. In the matter of Pawan Kumar Agrawal and Ashok Kumar Agrawal same offence arising out of same complainant case was registered, but no plea was taken by Enforcement Directorate before this High Court and they have been granted protection by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Agrawal and Another 2023 (2) TMI 1218 - SC ORDER , held that considering the fact that during the investigation, the Investigating Agency never arrested the petitioner(s) and that the petitioner(s) had co-operated during the investigation and that now the Charge-sheet is already filed and the custodial investigation is not required, we deem it appropriate to make order dated 23.03.2022 as absolute. It is directed that in case of arrest of petitioner(s), the petitioner(s) be released on bail on the terms and conditions that may be determined by the learned Trial Court. Considering the fact that the similar relief has been granted to the similarly situated accused persons by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this bail application is allowed in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is directed that in case of arrest of the present applicants, they shall be released on bail on the terms and conditions that may be determined by the trial Court - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with a criminal case involving the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Interpretation of Section 45 of the Act of 2002 regarding the conditions for granting bail.
3. Comparison of the present applicants' case with a previous case involving similar allegations and bail granted by the Supreme Court.

Analysis:
1. The applicants filed a bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. apprehending arrest in a case related to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The case involved allegations of assisting in money laundering activities by transferring funds through shell companies. The applicants sought bail similar to other co-accused who were granted bail by the Supreme Court in a related case.

2. The court examined Section 45 of the Act of 2002, which requires specific conditions to be met for granting bail, including giving the Public Prosecutor an opportunity to oppose the bail application and ensuring that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit further offenses while on bail. The non-applicant argued against bail, citing serious allegations and referring to the Supreme Court's decision granting liberty to other accused to apply for regular bail.

3. After reviewing the Supreme Court's order in a similar case, where bail was granted based on factors such as no prior arrest, cooperation during investigation, and the filing of a charge sheet, the court decided to allow the present applicants' bail application. The court noted the similarity in circumstances and directed the applicants to be released on bail, with the option to file a regular bail application within ten days before the competent court.

In conclusion, the court granted bail to the applicants based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in a similar case, emphasizing the need for fair consideration of bail applications in accordance with the law and individual merits.