9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 246 - HC - Money LaunderingGrant of Regular Bail - allegation of deliberately manipulating/falsifying stocks, inventories - tampering of evidence - influencing the witness - HELD THAT - The petitioner in the instant case is in custody since 27.10.2020. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the petitioner is a flight risk and according to the counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was granted permission to go to Sri Lanka for two weeks and thereafter he returned, the fact which has not been denied by the respondent. Tampering - HELD THAT - The evidence is documentary in nature and the documents and digital evidence is in the custody of the prosecuting agency. Influencing the witnesses - HELD THAT - No material has been placed on record by the respondent to show that anyone on behalf of the petitioner had tried to influence the witness of this case in any manner whatsoever. A vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse the bail and it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused is of such character and stature that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses and there is no material on record to show that if released on bail, he would tamper with the evidence or subvert the course of justice. As per the record, moveable and immovable properties have already been attached, the statement of the witness have also been recorded. The FIR was registered way back in 2014 and there is nothing to show that the petitioner tried to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. The petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court, subject to the condition that he shall not leave the country without permission of the Special Court, the passport if already not deposited, shall be deposited with the Special Court, he shall join the investigation as and when required by the prosecuting agency and he shall not tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses in any manner - Bail application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations of economic fraud and money laundering under PMLA, 2002. 3. Role and involvement of the petitioner in the alleged fraud. 4. Admissibility and impact of evidence under Section 50 of PMLA. 5. Applicability of twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA post the Supreme Court judgment. 6. Considerations for granting bail. Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of Regular Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.: The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court examined whether the conditions for bail were met, including the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, evidence tampering risks, and the likelihood of the petitioner absconding. 2. Allegations of Economic Fraud and Money Laundering under PMLA, 2002: The case involved a significant fraud of approximately ?1000 crore, with allegations under Sections 3/4 of the PMLA, 2002. The FIR was registered based on a complaint by M/s Hassad Netherland, BV, against several individuals for manipulating stocks and inventories of M/s Bush Foods Pvt. Ltd., resulting in substantial financial loss. 3. Role and Involvement of the Petitioner in the Alleged Fraud: The petitioner, an employee of M/s Hassad Netherland, BV, was accused of colluding with the main perpetrators to cheat the complainant company. He allegedly received kickbacks amounting to ?20 crore, with ?7 crore identified through various transactions. The petitioner was said to have played a crucial role in the business transaction between M/s Bush Foods and M/s Hassad Foods, including inventory verification and due diligence processes. 4. Admissibility and Impact of Evidence under Section 50 of PMLA: The petitioner argued that statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA are inadmissible as inculpatory evidence due to Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The court noted that the value of such statements would be determined during the trial. 5. Applicability of Twin Conditions under Section 45 of PMLA Post the Supreme Court Judgment: The court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India, which struck down the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of PMLA as unconstitutional. The amendment in Section 45 by the Finance Act 2018 did not revive these conditions. Therefore, the court applied the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. for granting bail. 6. Considerations for Granting Bail: The court considered several factors: - The petitioner had been in custody since 27.10.2020. - There was no evidence suggesting the petitioner was a flight risk. - Documentary evidence was already seized, minimizing tampering risks. - No material indicated that the petitioner had influenced witnesses. - The petitioner's properties were attached, and statements were recorded. The court emphasized that detailed examination of evidence at the bail stage should be avoided to prevent prejudicing the case. The petitioner was granted bail with conditions, including furnishing a personal bond of ?1,00,000, not leaving the country without permission, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Conclusion: The petitioner was admitted to bail, subject to specific conditions, ensuring compliance with legal requirements and safeguarding the investigation's integrity. The court's decision was based on established principles and the specific circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
|
