2017 (9) TMI 434 - HC - Money Laundering

Offence under sections 3 and 4 of the P.M.L.A. Act - anticipatory bail - unaccounted amount of more than a crore, which was given as a loan by the petitioner to his wife-Ankita Singh, who in turn, had given a loan of Rupees One Crore to her brother Surya Sonal Singh - Held that - The supplementary complaint has put much reliance on the fact that Income tax Return did not reflect the loan amount. However, the balance sheet, which has been appended to the Income tax Return for the assessment year 2009-2010 does suggest that Ankita Singh had obtained unsecured loan of ₹ 1,22,31.000 from the petitioner and had given as a loan an amount of Rupees One Crore to co-accused-Surya Sonal Singh. The veracity of the balance sheet has sufficiently been substantiated by the information received under the Right to Information Act and the same also finds mention in the order of the adjudicating authority at clause 8.12. The adjudicating authority on proper assessment of the documentary evidence as well as the statement of the accused recorded under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act had released the property attached with respect to all the live units. It is also to be noted herein that the petitioner or for that matter other accused Surya Sonal Singh and Ankita Singh were never made accused in the main offence, which was investigated by the C.B.I. Thus, the allegation made in the supplementary complaint seems to have been sufficiently diluted by virtue of the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Petitioner also seems to have fully cooperated in the investigation and his statement was also recorded. The investigation having been completed, supplementary complaint has already been filed by the opposite party. The petitioner is in custody and the main accused persons namely Kamlesh Kumar Singh @ Kamlesh Singh and his wife Madhu Singh have been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 2703 of 2012 and B.A. No. 3602 of 2014 respectively. In view of the circumstances, enumerated above, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of ₹ 10,000/- (Ten thousand only), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi

Summary

Issues:
Accused's involvement in a case under the P.M.L.A. Act, denial of anticipatory bail, allegations of money laundering, unaccounted funds, bail application based on lack of evidence.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the accused's involvement in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (P.M.L.A. Act) for offences under sections 3 and 4. Initially, the accused's plea for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Court, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court, which disposed of the application in 2017. The prosecution alleged that the accused had acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of income, leading to investigations and charges under relevant laws.

The core issue revolved around unaccounted funds and alleged money laundering activities. The accused was implicated for extending a loan to his wife, which was not disclosed in the Income tax Returns. The prosecution contended that the accused failed to explain the source of the funds, indicating involvement in money laundering. However, the defense argued that the Income tax Returns did reflect the transactions, and the adjudicating authority had released the attached properties, questioning the prosecution's claims. The defense emphasized the accused's cooperation during the investigation and cited previous bail orders in related cases.

The judgment highlighted discrepancies between the supplementary complaint and the evidence presented. It noted that the accused were not implicated in the main offence investigated by the C.B.I., and the allegations in the supplementary complaint were weakened by the adjudicating authority's order. The Court considered the accused's cooperation, completion of the investigation, and the bail granted to main accused persons in related cases. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the accused upon furnishing a bail bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi, in connection with the case under the P.M.L.A. Act.

In conclusion, the judgment carefully analyzed the allegations of money laundering, unaccounted funds, and the accused's involvement in the case under the P.M.L.A. Act. It considered the evidence, cooperation of the accused, and previous legal precedents to grant bail based on the lack of substantial evidence linking the accused to the alleged offences.