2017 (5) TMI 731 - HC - Money Laundering

Pre-arrest bail - Prevention of Money Laundering -Nmain allegations in the complaint are against Chunni Lal Gaba who is father of the petitioner and Gurjit Kumar Gaba who is another son of Chunni Lal Gaba - cases under the NDPS Act have also been registered and there are specific allegations of manufacturing and sale of illicit drugs/contrabands against them - Held that - The present Petitioner even though he is not a Director in M/s Medcare Remedies Pvt. Ltd., nevertheless stands on a different footing from his uncle, Harmesh Kumar Gaba. It has transpired from the reply of the Respondent that the Petitioner had purchased a plot in Jalandhar after an amount of ₹ 5 lacs was transferred through RTGS from the Bank Account of the accused Company M/s Medcare Remedies Pvt. Ltd. by the principal accused Gurjit Kumar Gaba. Besides, the petitioner is also stated to be the actual brain behind laundering of proceeds of crime, by way of having received a huge amount of ₹ 2,27,30,000/- in cash from his brother/Principal accused Gurjit Kumar Gaba in the year 2012-13. The Petitioner also has an influential Political Profile and happens to be President of the Municipal Committee, Goraya. He is thus stated to have provided protection to his father and younger brother for indulging in Drug Trafficking while holding such influential Office. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner as was done in the case of his brother Harmesh Kumar Gaba. The petition is therefore, rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Petition for pre-arrest bail in a criminal complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
- Allegations against the petitioner's family members and their involvement in drug-related offenses.
- Comparison of the petitioner's case with his uncle's case for anticipatory bail.
- Decision on the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending in the Court of a Special Judge. The complaint involved several accused persons, including the petitioner, with main allegations against his father and brother for drug-related offenses. The company where the father and brother were directors was also implicated in the case.

In support of the anticipatory bail plea, the petitioner argued that no case under the NDPS Act was registered against him, and he was not a director in the accused company. The petitioner sought bail based on parity with his uncle, to whom anticipatory bail was granted in a previous order. After hearing both parties and reviewing the respondent's reply, the court found that the petitioner's situation differed from his uncle's.

The court noted that the petitioner had purchased a plot using funds transferred from the accused company's bank account, and he was allegedly involved in laundering proceeds of crime. Additionally, the petitioner, with a significant political position, was accused of providing protection to his family members engaged in drug trafficking. Due to these reasons, the court deemed it inappropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, unlike in his uncle's case, and consequently rejected the petition.