2020 (6) TMI 421 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of Bail - Money Laundering - scheduled offences - submissions of applicant is that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and in jail since 07.01.2020 - HELD THAT - The schedule offence was registered on 30.11.2007 by the CBI and the applicant co-operated in the aforesaid schedule offence and thereafter, charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, CBI (Central), Lucknow on 06.10.2009, then the applicant surrendered before Special Judge, CBI (Central), Lucknow and he was released on bail on 15.12.2009, thereafter, the Enforcement Directorate registered the ECIR on 31.03.2010 and started investigation, but the applicant was not taken into custody under Section 19 of The Act and no Provisional Attachment Order under Section 5 of The Act was issued by the Enforcement Directorate in relation to the property related to the proceed of crime, his statement under Section 50 of The Act was recorded on different occasions and after eight years from the date of registering of ECIR, the complaint under Section 45 of The Act was filed on 28.09.2018 before the Sessions Judge/Special Judge PMLA, Lucknow, but merely on the basis of statement of the applicant and other accused persons, the complaint has been filed as no any statement of witness in support of the case as mentioned in para 4.5 etc. is annexed to the complaint and it was informed by the counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement that all the witnesses will be called and examined before the trial court as the applicant is in jail since 07.01.2020 and the maximum punishment provided for the offence under Section 4 of The Act is seven years, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Let applicant Vinod Kumar Mishra be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime on his furnishing personal bond amounting to ₹ 3,00,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Bail Application under PMLA, 2002
The bail application was filed in Case No.112 of 2018 under Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The applicant claimed innocence, stating false implication and lack of criminal history. The applicant participated in the trial of the predicate offence and cooperated in the investigations conducted by the Enforcement Directorate. The applicant's counsel argued that no material supported the allegations, emphasizing the absence of a Provisional Attachment Order. Citing Supreme Court cases, the applicant sought bail, asserting no misuse of liberty if granted.

Issue 2: Prosecution's Opposition
The Directorate of Enforcement opposed bail, alleging the applicant's involvement in a fraud amounting to ?1,59,91,156. The fraud was related to cheques encashed from a LIC account. The Directorate highlighted the applicant's role in the alleged crime, contending that the burden of proof lay on the applicant. While acknowledging the applicant's cooperation during investigation, the Directorate emphasized the seriousness of the charges and the need for trial evidence.

Judgment
After considering submissions and records, the Court noted the applicant's cooperation in the scheduled offence investigation and subsequent ECIR registration by the Enforcement Directorate. Notably, the applicant was not arrested or issued a Provisional Attachment Order. The complaint under PMLA was filed after eight years, primarily based on statements without witness corroboration. Given the applicant's custody since 2020 and the maximum seven-year punishment, the Court granted bail. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and sureties, with strict conditions to prevent misuse of bail. The trial court was instructed to expedite proceedings without unnecessary adjournments.