9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 91 - HC - Money LaunderingGrant of Bail - Money Laundering - Scheduled offences - allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner amazed huge amount of movable and immovable property from his criminal activity in connection with twenty-six criminal cases against the petitioner - HELD THAT - There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner would tamper with the evidence or be non-co-operative in the trial. In GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT , the Constitution Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court said that the bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. The main object is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is applicable in this matter. Considering the entire facts aforesaid, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of ₹ 75,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Complaint Case.
Issues:
Grant of bail in connection with a complaint case under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 based on various grounds such as completion of investigation, lockdown due to COVID-19, property discovery, and legal principles for bail consideration. Analysis: The petitioner sought bail due to being in jail since 14.06.2019, completion of investigation, and the unlikelihood of trial conclusion during the COVID-19 lockdown. The petitioner emphasized cooperation with the trial and challenged the assumption that his property proceeds from criminal activities. The petitioner's property discovery was over 98 lakhs, falling under the bail provision of less than one crore rupees as per Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner relied on legal principles from the Supreme Court's judgment in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement for bail considerations. The Union of India opposed bail, highlighting the gravity of economic offences under the Act, the petitioner's criminal background, and potential evidence tampering risks. The Union argued that the principles in P. Chidambaram's case did not apply due to the petitioner facing twenty-six criminal cases, unlike the mentioned case. The Court considered the gravity of the offences, noting that out of the twenty-six cases, twenty resulted in acquittal, two were against unknown individuals, and two had police as informants. The Court emphasized that mere accusations without convictions do not establish a criminal background. With the petitioner in custody for over eleven months and trial delays due to COVID-19, bail was granted to ensure attendance at trial, following the proviso of Section 45 of the Act. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, emphasizing that bail is not a form of punishment but a means to secure the accused's trial presence. Considering the circumstances, the Court granted bail to the petitioner upon furnishing a bail bond and sureties, subject to conditions like cooperation with the trial, non-tampering with evidence, and not leaving the country without court permission. The Court's decision was based on the specific facts of the case and the need to secure the petitioner's presence for trial.
|
