9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 344 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - illegal collection of money - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - corruption and criminal conspiracy in which the ACB/EOW raided few offices and residences - allegation that Applicant Anil Tuteja received an amount of ₹ 2,21,94,000 and Applicant Alok Shukla received an amount of ₹ 1,51,43,000 illegally during the period from 30.5.2014 to 18.2.2015 and 1.7.2014 to 18.2.2015, respectively - HELD THAT - There is concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the Court of Session for entertaining an application preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and an application filed by the Applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. directly before the High Court is maintainable. From the speech of the then Finance Minister, it is also clear that the provisions of Section 24 of PMLA only apply after framing of a charge against the accused - In the instant matter, the predicate offence is of the year 2014 2015. In said case, charge-sheet has already been filed and no recovery was made from any of the Applicants. No departmental proceeding has been initiated against any of the Applicants nor has any show cause notice been issued against them. No case regarding acquisition of any disproportionate property has been registered against them. Out of 212, about 153 witnesses have already been examined. Despite the fact that the 18 Applicants are officers of Indian Administrative Services, there is no allegation levelled against them that they ever influenced any of the witnesses or tampered with any evidence. ECIR case was registered against them in the year 2019. Notice was issued to them for the first time in the ECIR case in the month of March, 2020. The delay in issuance of notice has not been explained. The benefit of anticipatory bail provided to the Applicants - both the applications for grant of anticipatory bail are allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court for Anticipatory Bail Applications 2. Applicability of Section 24 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA) 3. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to Anticipatory Bail 4. Requirement of Custodial Interrogation 5. Maintainability of Direct Application to High Court 6. Allegations and Evidence Against the Applicants 7. Delay in Issuance of Notice by the Directorate of Enforcement Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Court for Anticipatory Bail Applications: The court confirmed that both the High Court and the Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). This was supported by previous judgments, such as the one in Mubarik v. State of Uttarakhand, which established that an application for anticipatory bail can be filed directly before the High Court. 2. Applicability of Section 24 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA): Section 24 of PMLA places the burden of proof on the accused only after charges are framed against them. This interpretation was supported by the speech of the then Finance Minister who introduced the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Amendment) Bill, 2012, indicating that the burden of proof shifts to the accused only when the court frames a charge. 3. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to Anticipatory Bail: The Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India clarified that Section 45 of PMLA, which imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail, does not apply to anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This was reiterated in the current judgment, establishing that the provisions of Section 45 do not restrict the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Requirement of Custodial Interrogation: The court found no substantial reason provided by the Directorate of Enforcement for the necessity of custodial interrogation. The applicants had cooperated with the investigation, and their statements had already been recorded. The lack of any recovery from the applicants in the predicate offence further weakened the argument for custodial interrogation. 5. Maintainability of Direct Application to High Court: The court dismissed the argument that the applicants should have first approached the Sessions Court, affirming that filing an anticipatory bail application directly before the High Court is maintainable. This was supported by previous judicial precedents and the concurrent jurisdiction of both courts. 6. Allegations and Evidence Against the Applicants: The allegations involved corruption and money laundering, with specific amounts allegedly received by the applicants. However, the court noted that the evidence primarily relied on the contents of a pen drive and statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, with no direct evidence against the applicants. Furthermore, many witnesses had denied any involvement in bribery or illegal transactions. 7. Delay in Issuance of Notice by the Directorate of Enforcement: The court observed an unexplained delay in the issuance of notice to the applicants, which was issued more than a year after the registration of the ECIR case. This delay was seen as a factor weakening the case for denying anticipatory bail. Conclusion: The court, considering the totality of circumstances, granted anticipatory bail to the applicants. The applicants were directed to furnish a personal bond and cooperate fully with the investigation while adhering to specific conditions to ensure a fair trial. The judgment emphasized the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Court, the non-applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to anticipatory bail, and the requirement of custodial interrogation only when justified by substantial reasons.
|
