9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 21 - HC - Money LaunderingGrant of Bail - Money Laundering - allegation of illegal schemes to mobilise deposits from the innocent investors including the deposits under the scheme of issue of debentures with false assurance of high return and thereby generated huge sums of money for different purposes by making fool the common people - case of Respondent is that the present petitioner being the Debenture Trustees of the company was responsible for the acts and daily affairs of the company at the relevant time and as per his plan and advice, the company planned such illegal schemes - HELD THAT - It would appear from the investigation report that the petitioner accused the Debenture Trustee member accused no. 1 was responsible for the acts and affairs of the company and at the relevant time he planned and designed the illegal schemes to mobilise deposits from the investors including deposits under the schemes of issue of debentures with false assurance of high return and thereby generated huge sums and diverted and laundered the money for different purposes by be-fooling the common people. It is true that the debenture was advertised in 2001-2002 and this accused petitioner was a field Officer appointed by the Chairman Gautam Kundu of the company who is the key person in planning of such chit fund companies to the public at large but the accused petitioner was indicated as a Debenture Trustee of the accused company no. 1 obviously because of his expertise and designed in mobilisation the public at large to procure more and more money befooling the common public on the assurance of giving high return. This Court does not find any ground to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail on the ground of his medical treatment because Enforcement Directorate is ready to meet all expenditure on account of medical treatment through Super Speciality Hospitals in West Bengal which can be availed through the Superintendent Presidency Correctional Home - the application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Petitioner's prayer for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Health condition of the petitioner and adequacy of medical treatment in correctional home. 3. Parity in bail decisions among co-accused. 4. Responsibility of the petitioner as Debenture Trustee and involvement in the alleged crime. 5. Objections raised by Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) against granting bail. 6. Trial Court's delay in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Petitioner's Prayer for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The petitioner sought bail in connection with ML Case No. 03 of 2015 under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The learned Judge of the Special Court of PMLA, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta had previously rejected this request on 28th August 2019. The petitioner renewed his bail application citing health issues, but the court found no new grounds to grant bail, especially considering the severity of the allegations and the involvement in a chit fund scam. 2. Health Condition of the Petitioner and Adequacy of Medical Treatment in Correctional Home: The petitioner argued that he suffers from carcinoma, Diabetes Mellitus, hypertension, and other serious ailments, requiring specialized treatment not available in the correctional home. The court acknowledged the petitioner’s health issues but noted that the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) is ready to arrange for urgent medical attention through Super Speciality Hospitals in West Bengal. The court directed the Superintendent of the Presidency Correctional Home to ensure the petitioner receives necessary medical treatment. 3. Parity in Bail Decisions Among Co-Accused: The petitioner argued for bail on the grounds of parity, noting that other accused individuals in the case, such as Amit Banerjee, Sudhir Shaw, and B.K. Mallick, had been granted bail. However, the court found that the petitioner's role as Debenture Trustee and his involvement in the company's day-to-day activities distinguished his case from those of the co-accused. Thus, the court did not find sufficient grounds to grant bail based on parity. 4. Responsibility of the Petitioner as Debenture Trustee and Involvement in the Alleged Crime: The court noted that the petitioner, as a Debenture Trustee, was significantly involved in the company's operations and the mobilization of public deposits through illegal schemes. The petitioner was responsible for designing these schemes and misleading the public with false assurances of high returns. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s role was crucial in the alleged money laundering activities, thus justifying the denial of bail. 5. Objections Raised by Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) Against Granting Bail: The E.D. opposed the bail application, highlighting the petitioner’s significant role in the alleged crime and the substantial amount of money involved. The E.D. referenced a notification by the Ministry of Finance, which restricts bail for offenses involving amounts exceeding one crore rupees. The court agreed with the E.D.'s objections, noting that the petitioner’s actions had caused significant financial harm to the public. 6. Trial Court's Delay in Framing Charges and Proceeding with the Trial: The court acknowledged the delays in framing charges and proceeding with the trial, attributing these delays to multiple applications for discharge and bail by the accused persons. The court directed the trial court to frame charges promptly and proceed with the trial without granting unnecessary adjournments. The court emphasized the need for an expeditious trial in adherence to Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Conclusion: The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected. The court directed the trial court to frame charges and expedite the trial, ensuring that the petitioner receives necessary medical treatment through Super Speciality Hospitals at the cost of the Enforcement Directorate. The court emphasized the importance of proceeding with the trial without unnecessary delays and ensuring justice is served promptly.
|
