2020 (5) TMI 319 - HC - Money Laundering

Bail application - Money Laundering - Scheduled Offences - an amount of ₹ 2.55 Crores was seized/recovered from possession of the co-accused Dhirendra Singh and Sanjay Sethi - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur under section 439 Cr.P.C. under the scheduled offences. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are in custody since 19.02.2020/ 17.03.2020. While dealing with the present bail applications, this court has to see three facts, 1. running away of the accused 2. tempering with the evidence 3. influencing witnesses - the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail for the reasons; firstly the argument of Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG that the petitioners failed to appear before the trial court from 21.01.2020 till 17.02.2020 is not of any help as the petitioners were persuing their legal remedy under the law during the said period; secondly since all the documents seized are lying either with the officers of the Department or with the Court, so there is no question of tempering with the evidence; thirdly so far apprehension of influencing the witnesses is concerned in my considered view no attempt has been made by the department to show that the petitioners have ever tried to influence the witnesses of the department and fourthly the petitioners have been granted bail under the scheduled offences and the trial of both the cases is jointly going on and therefore no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioners in custody and lastly the amount seized by the ACB is lying in the FDR and the same has not been used either by the petitioners or by other co-accused persons. Bail application allowed - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioners in judicial custody for offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Impact of Coronavirus outbreak on court proceedings.
3. Consideration of bail application based on seriousness of the offence, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The bail applications were filed by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. as they were in judicial custody in connection with Session Case No.1/2019 for offences under Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioners had been previously enlarged on bail in Scheduled Offences by the Coordinate Bench of the Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur. The Enforcement Department had filed a complaint under the PML Act, and the Designated Court had taken cognizance and issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioners and other co-accused persons. The petitioners challenged the orders before the Supreme Court, which granted protection from arrest for a limited period. The petitioners surrendered and filed bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which were dismissed by the Designated PML Act Court, leading to the filing of the present bail applications.

Issue 2:
Due to the outbreak of Coronavirus, lawyers were not appearing in court. However, the court heard the counsels for the parties through video calling and perused the record to ensure the proceedings continued despite the challenging circumstances caused by the pandemic.

Issue 3:
The court considered various arguments presented by both parties. The petitioners' counsels highlighted that the petitioners had cooperated during the Enforcement Department's enquiry for over 2.5 years, were not arrested despite the department's powers to do so, and had not misused the seized amount. They also emphasized that the trial for both cases was ongoing jointly. The counsels relied on relevant judgments to support their arguments. On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General argued that the present offence was more serious, with a likelihood of evidence tampering and influencing witnesses. The ASG cited judgments to support the contention that the petitioners were not entitled to bail due to the nature of the economic offence and the confirmed cognizance orders.

The court, after considering the arguments and judgments cited, found that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The court noted that the petitioners had pursued legal remedies during the period they did not appear before the trial court, and there was no evidence of tampering or influencing witnesses. The court emphasized that keeping the petitioners in custody would not serve any useful purpose, especially since they had been granted bail in the scheduled offences. Therefore, the court allowed the bail applications, admitting the petitioners to regular bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial court and directed the office to send a copy of the order to the concerned trial court for compliance.