9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 728 - HC - Money LaunderingOffence under PMLA - bail application - Held that - FIR No.205/2016 the Crime Branch did not even think it fit to arrest the petitioners and filed a charge-sheet without arrest. The evidence in the present case is primarily documentary in nature and statements of accused which are admissible in evidence have already been recorded under Section 50 of PMLA. Further corroborative evidence in the form of CCTV footage and call detail records is also documentary in nature. Moreover as per the requirement of Section 44 of PMLA trials in FIR No.205/2016 for the scheduled offence as well as Section 4 PMLA in ECIR No.18/DLZOII/2016 are required to be held together. Hence the trial is likely to take some time. Thus, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioners. Therefore, directed that the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹5 lakhs each with two sureties of the like amount each subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, further subject to the condition that the petitioners will not leave the country without prior permission of the Trial Court and in case of change of residential address the same will be intimated by way of an affidavit to the Court concerned.
Issues Involved:
1. Regular bail application under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 2. Legality of depositing demonetized currency. 3. Allegations of forgery and cheating. 4. Application of Section 45 PMLA conditions. 5. Documentary evidence and trial proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Regular Bail Application under PMLA: The petitioners, Rohit Tandon and Raj Kumar Goel, sought regular bail in ECIR No.18/DLZO-II/2016 recorded by the Enforcement Directorate under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The ECIR was recorded pursuant to FIR No.205/2016 registered for various offences under the IPC. 2. Legality of Depositing Demonetized Currency: The court noted that as per the notification dated 8th November 2016 by the Ministry of Finance, depositing demonetized currency in one’s own account was not an offence. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners converted black money into new currency notes through a conspiracy involving multiple bank accounts and forged documents. However, it was argued that the accounts were pre-existing and not fictitious, and the money deposited was not public money but belonged to Rohit Tandon. 3. Allegations of Forgery and Cheating: The prosecution claimed that the petitioners, along with other accused, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to convert demonetized currency into monetized currency by depositing cash into various accounts and issuing demand drafts in fictitious names. However, it was revealed that the demand drafts were prepared in the first names of Rohit Tandon’s employees, not fictitious names. The court refrained from making any conclusive observations on whether depositing demonetized currency in others' accounts amounted to cheating. 4. Application of Section 45 PMLA Conditions: The court considered the significant change in circumstances following the Supreme Court's decision in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India, which declared the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA unconstitutional. This change was pivotal in reconsidering the bail application, as the earlier rejection was based on these conditions. 5. Documentary Evidence and Trial Proceedings: The evidence in the case was primarily documentary, including statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, CCTV footage, and call detail records. The court noted that the petitioners had been in custody for over a year and four months, and despite the Supreme Court's direction for an expedited trial, arguments on charge had not begun. Given the documentary nature of the evidence and the prolonged custody, the court deemed it fit to grant bail to the petitioners. Conclusion: The court directed the release of the petitioners on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond of ?5 lakhs each with two sureties of the like amount. The petitioners were also restricted from leaving the country without prior permission from the trial court and were required to notify any change of residential address. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.
|
