2018 (12) TMI 1993 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - application was rejected mainly on the ground that the other co-accused persons were granted regular bail and the applicant had applied for anticipatory bail - HELD THAT - Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties and also considering the fact that the co-accused Vinod Bhandari and Nitin Mohindra have been granted bail vide order dated 29/8/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 34201/2018 and vide order dated 29/11/2018 in M.Cr.C. No. 46192/2018 respectively and that against co-accused Vinod Bhandari the allegations are much serious in nature and also taking note of the material which has been pointed out from the complaint and the fact that the conclusion of trial is likely to take long time having regard to the number of witnesses, it is opined that the applicant is entitled for bail on the same terms on which the bail has been granted to other co-accused persons. Bail applications allowed subject to conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues involved: Grant of bail u/s 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Parity with co-accused; Sufficiency of evidence; Conditions for bail.

In the present case, the applicant sought bail under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The applicant's counsel argued for bail based on parity with co-accused individuals who had been granted bail earlier. It was contended that the applicant's case was better than the co-accused, as no money trail or details of proceeds of crime were provided for the applicant, unlike the co-accused. The counsel also highlighted that the applicant had been in custody for a considerable period due to multiple IPC cases, where he had been granted bail. The rejection of anticipatory bail was also mentioned, emphasizing the issue of parity.

The respondent, opposing the bail, pointed out that the applicant, as the Director and Controller of VYAPAM, was in charge of the establishment and multiple FIRs under the IPC had been filed against him. It was mentioned that the statement recorded u/s 50 would be included in the supplementary charge sheet, along with references to the applicant's role as detailed in the complaint.

After considering the arguments from both sides and noting that the co-accused had been granted bail earlier, the Court found that the allegations against the co-accused were more serious. Given the likelihood of a lengthy trial due to numerous witnesses, the Court granted bail to the applicant on similar terms as the co-accused. The conditions for bail included executing a PR bond, furnishing sureties, submitting residential address proof, surrendering the passport, attending court dates, refraining from tampering with evidence or pressurizing witnesses, and allowing the respondent to take legal action in case of condition violations.