9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 64 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Release of petitioner on bail - loans to shell companies and related known entities - siphoning of funds - HELD THAT - It is essential to observe that during the course the hearing of the present proceedings, it was suo moto by this Court brought to the notice of both the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and learned Senior Standing Counsel for the State Mr. Rahul Mehra that in Writ Petition Civil Diary No.10829/2020 vide order dated 07.04.2020, the Hon ble Supreme Court permitted the petitioner thereof who had challenged the criterion of the Hon ble High Powered Committee of this Court dated 28.03.2020 putting an embargo to the release on interim bail/ parole of under trials in cases of alleged commission of economic offences and whereby vide order dated 07.04.2020, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the said writ petition thus granted the prayer of the petitioner thereof to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to prefer a representation before the Hon ble High Powered Committee of this Court. Though it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that merely because another litigant had withdrawn the prayer made before the Hon ble Supreme Court submitting in relation to the alleged arbitrariness of the criteria laid down by the Hon ble High Powered Committee in relation to the economic offences, the same cannot apply qua the submissions made by the petitioner, nevertheless, it is essential to observe that in as much as there are allegations against the petitioner of the alleged commission of economic offences inter alia punishable under the PMLA Act, 2002 as also punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Application declined.
Issues Involved:
1. Application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of Cr.PC for urgent relief. 2. Allegations of financial misconduct and money laundering. 3. Overcrowding in prisons due to COVID-19 and the Supreme Court's directives. 4. Petitioner's health concerns. 5. High Powered Committee's guidelines on interim bail. 6. State's opposition to interim bail. 7. Previous court rulings on similar cases. 8. High Powered Committee's criteria for bail exclusion. 9. Supreme Court's direction on representation to High Powered Committee. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of Cr.PC for urgent relief: The petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Cr.PC, 1973, seeking urgent relief to stay the minutes of the High Powered Committee meeting held on 28.03.2020 and to release the petitioner on bail/parole. 2. Allegations of financial misconduct and money laundering: The FIR No.50/2019 alleges that the petitioner, along with co-conspirators, played a significant role in the management of Religare Finvest Limited (RFL), forging documents to secure high-value loans to shell companies, resulting in a principal amount of ?2397 crores and ?415 crores as interest being siphoned off. The Directorate of Enforcement filed a complaint under Sections 44/45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, alleging money laundering. 3. Overcrowding in prisons due to COVID-19 and the Supreme Court's directives: The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020 directed states to form High Powered Committees to determine which prisoners could be released on parole or interim bail to control the spread of COVID-19 in overcrowded prisons. The petitioner claimed that the prison conditions and the risk of contracting COVID-19 warranted his release. 4. Petitioner's health concerns: The petitioner cited his health issues, including acute attacks of Gastroenteritis, haemorrhoids, and other ailments, arguing that his compromised immune system increased his risk of contracting COVID-19. 5. High Powered Committee's guidelines on interim bail: The High Powered Committee's guidelines dated 28.03.2020 excluded undertrial prisoners facing charges under the PMLA from being considered for interim bail. The petitioner argued that this exclusion was arbitrary and did not align with the Supreme Court's order. 6. State's opposition to interim bail: The State, represented by Mr. Rahul Mehra, opposed the petitioner's request, citing the High Powered Committee's guidelines and arguing that the petitioner, accused of economic offences, did not qualify for interim bail. The State also noted that the petitioner's health was stable and that he was in isolation, minimizing the risk of COVID-19. 7. Previous court rulings on similar cases: The petitioner referenced several verdicts, including Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, to support his claim for interim bail. However, the court found these cases distinguishable from the present case. 8. High Powered Committee's criteria for bail exclusion: The High Powered Committee reiterated on 18.04.2020 that undertrial prisoners facing charges under the PMLA, among other serious offences, should not be considered for interim bail. The court noted that the petitioner's case fell within these excluded categories. 9. Supreme Court's direction on representation to High Powered Committee: The Supreme Court, in Writ Petition Civil Diary No.10829/2020, allowed a petitioner to withdraw their challenge to the High Powered Committee's criteria with liberty to make a representation before the Committee. The court suggested that the petitioner could seek similar redressal. Conclusion: The court declined the petitioner's application for interim bail/parole, noting that the petitioner's case did not fall within the High Powered Committee's guidelines for interim bail. The court also observed that the petitioner's health condition was stable. However, the petitioner was permitted to seek redressal by making a representation to the High Powered Committee.
|
