2017 (5) TMI 1429 - HC - Money Laundering

Regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case registered under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA - Held that - Admitted position is that the premises where raid was conducted on 10.12.2016 i.e. R-89 Greater Kailash part-I New Delhi did not belong to the petitioner. It is also admitted that at the time of recovery of 2.62 crores in the denomination of 2000 currency notes the petitioner was not present in the said premises. When specifically enquired as to how the money recovered from Rohit Tandon s premises was connected with the petitioner the learned counsel informed that statements of co-accused Rohit Tandon and his employees have been recorded and they have disclosed in their statements that the currency belonged to the petitioner. These statements are to be tested during trial. Status report reveals that Vijay Kumar @ Kant Mishra has claimed ownership of the new currency recovered from the spot before Income Tax Department. No credible evidence is on record to infer as to whom the money belonged and how the petitioner was beneficiary. Considering the above facts and circumstances and detention period undergone by the petitioner since 19.12.2016 he is admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of 5 lacs with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court.

Summary

Issues involved:
Petition for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) based on allegations of money laundering and conversion of demonetized currency.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case registered under PMLA, where he was accused of converting demonetized currency into monetized currency in violation of the demonetization policy announced by the Government of India. The Enforcement Directorate asserted that the petitioner was a key figure in this illegal activity, exchanging demonetized currency for a commission and converting large sums for various individuals.

2. The Enforcement Directorate highlighted that the petitioner had admitted to owning a significant amount of the recovered currency in his statement recorded under Section 50 PMLA. Additionally, the petitioner was intercepted at the airport while attempting to flee the country, indicating a flight risk. The petitioner's involvement in similar cases was also discussed, with details of his arrest in another PMLA case in Chennai.

3. The court noted that the premises where the raid took place did not belong to the petitioner, and he was not present during the recovery of a substantial amount of currency. The petitioner denied ownership of the recovered currency, and no other cash recovery was linked to him. Statements of co-accused implicated the petitioner, but the ownership of the money was disputed and required further examination during trial.

4. After considering the circumstances, including the petitioner's detention since December 2016, the court granted bail on a personal bond of ?5 lakhs with one surety. The petitioner was instructed not to leave India without the Trial Court's permission. The bail application was disposed of accordingly, with the order issued for immediate action.