9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1247 - HC - Money LaunderingOffence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act - bail application - applicant did not surrender before the court - Held that - The conduct of the applicant that she did not surrender before the court below since July 2015 when the present case as well as all the other three cases were registered against the applicant also and she avoided her arrest and did not appear before the Enforcement Directorate for interrogation. The trial court has also issued a non-bailable warrant against her when she did not respond to the summon issued to her. Ultimately, she surrendered on 5.9.2018 before the trial court. Thus, she appears to have absconded for three years from the due process of law. Hence the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of her daughters who have been granted bail by this Court who were involved in only one case. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, we are of the view that the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. The bail application is accordingly rejected. However, taking into account the order of the Apex Court, it is directed that the applicant shall not be arrested till 10.1.2019 in order to enable her to avail the remedy before the appropriate forum, if she further wants to seek, failing which the trial court is at liberty to take coercive action against her to secure her presence if she does not surrender before the trial court after 10.01.2019.
Issues Involved:
1. Bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act). 2. Allegations and evidence against the applicant. 3. Applicant's health and personal circumstances. 4. Legal precedents and arguments cited by the applicant's counsel. 5. Opposition to the bail by the Directorate of Enforcement. 6. Territorial jurisdiction of the court. 7. Applicant's conduct and other criminal cases. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Bail Application under the PML Act: The applicant sought bail in Complaint Case No. 13 of 2017 arising out of ECIR/04/PMLA/LKZO/2015 under sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act. The application was considered by the High Court of Allahabad. 2. Allegations and Evidence Against the Applicant: The Directorate of Enforcement filed a complaint against the applicant and others, alleging that the applicant facilitated her husband, Yadav Singh, in receiving ?50.00 lakhs through her firm, M/s. Kusum Garments Pvt. Ltd. The money was allegedly provided by Pradeep Garg through M/s. Gannayak Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. The investigation revealed that Yadav Singh was to receive a bribe of 0.5% on each running bill of the contractors. The applicant's involvement was established through various statements recorded under section 50 of the PML Act and financial analysis of her firm's transactions. 3. Applicant's Health and Personal Circumstances: The applicant, a 55-year-old housewife, claimed to suffer from multiple life-threatening diseases, including a removed kidney, arthritis, hypertension, acute vertigo, urinary tract infection, nausea, reduced appetite, and depression. The applicant's counsel argued that her health condition warranted bail under section 437 Cr.P.C. 4. Legal Precedents and Arguments Cited by the Applicant's Counsel: The applicant's counsel cited several judgments, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, which states that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Other cases cited include Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P., and Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India, which struck down the twin conditions for bail under section 45 of the PML Act. 5. Opposition to the Bail by the Directorate of Enforcement: The Directorate of Enforcement opposed the bail, arguing that the applicant was actively involved in money laundering, as evidenced by the statements and financial transactions. The applicant's failure to appear for her statement under section 50 of the PML Act and her influential status were also highlighted. The Directorate argued that releasing the applicant on bail could jeopardize the investigation and the economy. 6. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court: The applicant's counsel argued that the territorial jurisdiction lies with the Allahabad High Court, as the offence occurred in Noida, which falls within its jurisdiction. This argument was supported by the judgment in Paritosh Kumar vs. Union of India, which determined jurisdiction based on the location of the incident. 7. Applicant's Conduct and Other Criminal Cases: The applicant was involved in three other criminal cases besides the present one. Her conduct, including avoiding arrest and not appearing before the Enforcement Directorate, was noted. The trial court issued a non-bailable warrant against her, and she surrendered only after three years. This conduct distinguished her case from her daughters, who were granted bail. Conclusion: The High Court rejected the bail application, noting the applicant's involvement in money laundering, her conduct, and the gravity of the offence. However, the court directed that the applicant shall not be arrested until 10.01.2019 to enable her to seek further remedies before the appropriate forum.
|
