2020 (6) TMI 92 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of Anticipatory bail - case of petitioner is that the Accused petitioner was not even made an accused in the original case emanating from FIR No. 251/2015 registered with the Anti Corruption Bureau against other co-accused persons - HELD THAT - Perusal of material on record and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, specially to the fact that revision petition challenging the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the trial court, has already been dismissed by a coordinate bench of this court as well as by the Hon ble Supreme Court, similarly situated co-accused have already surrendered before the trial court and looking to the fact that accused petitioner is involved in serious economic offence involving huge sum of money and keeping in mind the principle of law enunciated by Hon ble apex court in P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT , but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not deem it to be a fit case to enlarge the accused petitioner on anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Consideration of the accused petitioner's involvement in the alleged economic offence and the relevance of previous court orders in deciding the bail application.

Issue 1: Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case pending before the Special Judge, Communal Riot Cases, Jaipur, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner, a widow, was implicated in the case due to her application to release seized funds that belonged to her deceased husband. The petitioner argued that she had no connection to the alleged crime and that her involvement was unjustified. The petitioner highlighted her age, health conditions, and the lack of evidence connecting her to the offence as grounds for anticipatory bail. The petitioner cited various case laws to support her application, emphasizing the need to consider the accused's role in deciding anticipatory bail applications.

Issue 2: Consideration of the Accused Petitioner's Involvement in the Economic Offence
The Additional Solicitor General opposed the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of economic offences and their impact on society and the economy. The respondent argued that economic offences require a different approach and cited cases where the Supreme Court held that accused persons in economic offences are not entitled to anticipatory bail. The respondent pointed out that the petitioner had a history of evading justice and that previous court orders upheld the cognizance against the petitioner. The respondent highlighted the rejection of anticipatory bail applications of other co-accused persons by the courts, indicating a consistent approach in such cases. The respondent relied on the judgment in P. Chidambaram v. Union of India to argue against granting anticipatory bail in economic offences. The court, after considering the arguments of both parties and the circumstances of the case, dismissed the anticipatory bail application, noting the involvement of the accused petitioner in a serious economic offence and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in similar cases.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal reasoning behind the decision to dismiss the anticipatory bail application in the case involving offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.