9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1104 - HC - Indian LawsGrant of regular bail - Hawala - smuggling - Heroin - petitioner has been nominated on the ground that the petitioner was given an amount of ₹ 10 lacs by some person from Australia and the said amount was drug money and was used in HAWALA - HELD THAT - Allegations are limited only to HAWALA transaction and do not suggest the knowledge of alleged HAWALA money being transected from drug paddling by the petitioner. No offence under NDPS Act is attracted. Offence under Section 27-A of NDPS Act is attracted only in the case of alleged financing with the knowledge of the same being with regard to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances - Allegations are silent in respect of alleged financing by the petitioner in terms of offence under Section 27-A of the Act. Petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 05.06.2020. Interim bail was extended by subsequent orders till date - Application allowed.
Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving FIR under Sections 21, 25, 27A, and 29 of NDPS Act, related to allegations of drug trafficking, money laundering, and hawala transactions. Analysis: The petitioner sought regular bail based on being nominated in the case involving the recovery of 188 kg of heroin and chemicals from a house rented by the main accused. The petitioner was implicated due to receiving drug money through hawala transactions, as per the disclosure statement of the main accused. The allegations pointed towards the petitioner's involvement in hawala transactions under the guise of a money-changing business, emphasizing the complicity under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act, a scheduled offense under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act). The defense argued that the PMLA Act's provisions have overriding effect over other acts due to the nature of the allegations, contending that the petitioner's complicity falls under the PMLA Act, even though the case was not registered under it. Reference was made to the interpretation of Section 45 of the PMLA Act in comparison to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, highlighting the constitutional invalidity of imposing additional bail conditions. The defense stressed that no recovery was made from the petitioner, and the allegations were limited to hawala transactions without indicating knowledge of drug-related money laundering. The State counsel maintained that the petitioner was nominated based on the main accused's disclosure statement, with no recovery from the petitioner. While the charges were not framed, the interim bail granted to the petitioner was not misused. A co-accused was granted regular bail, emphasizing the lack of recovery from the petitioner compared to the co-accused. The court found the case debatable and made the interim bail absolute, directing the petitioner's release on regular bail upon furnishing appropriate bonds, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits.
|
