9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 962 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - transit bail - fake and fraudulent transactions - breach of conditions of agreements entered into for sale of land to poor people or employees - Economic Offences - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of P. CHIDAMBARAM 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that in a case like a Economic Offences the Court should not grant anticipatory bail and if the anticipatory bail is granted the investigation may be frustrated. In view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court the alleged offence though non-bailable the same is punishable with 7 years of imprisonment and even under PML Act the punishment is 7 years but the alleged offences committed amounts to cheating and fraudulent transaction from initial stage. They planned and prepared documents dealing with sale and M/s. SDL acted as seller and buyer of the properties and almost more than Rs. 200 Crores of fake transactions said to have been created by the petitioner and therefore the alleged offence is nothing but an economic offence which obstructs the development of the State and the Country. The petitioner is not entitled for any anticipatory bail from this Court - Criminal petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Karnataka High Court to grant anticipatory bail. 2. Maintainability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 3. Allegations and evidence against the petitioner. 4. Applicability of anticipatory bail in economic offences under PMLA. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Karnataka High Court to grant anticipatory bail: The primary contention from the respondent's side was that the Karnataka High Court lacks jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail for offences committed in Haryana and registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in Delhi. The prosecution relied on Section 177 of Cr.P.C., which mandates that offences should be tried in the local jurisdiction where they were committed. However, the Court referred to precedents from the Karnataka High Court and Delhi High Court, which held that anticipatory bail can be granted by a court within whose jurisdiction the person apprehends arrest. The Court cited the case of Dr. L.R. Naidu vs. State of Karnataka and Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma vs. Delhi Administration, which support the view that anticipatory bail can be granted even if the offence was committed outside the jurisdiction, provided the person apprehends arrest within the jurisdiction of the court. 2. Maintainability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.: The Court examined whether it has the authority to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for offences committed outside its jurisdiction. The Court referred to previous rulings, including the case of Saurabh Sangal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, which questioned the practice of granting transit bail. However, the Court distinguished between transit bail and regular anticipatory bail, asserting that the latter is within its purview if the petitioner apprehends arrest within its jurisdiction. The Court concluded that it has the power to grant anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the jurisdiction to grant bail is separate from the jurisdiction to try the offence. 3. Allegations and evidence against the petitioner: The allegations against the petitioner involved a violation of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, and cheating under Section 420 of IPC. The petitioner, as Vice Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Sobha Developers Ltd., was implicated in fraudulent transactions involving the sale of plots under the 'No Profit No Loss' (NPNL) scheme, which were allegedly sold to employees and then to a third party, resulting in significant financial gain. The Haryana Police initially registered an FIR including Section 420 of IPC but later filed a charge-sheet only under Section 10 of the HDRUA Act, indicating no loss to the Haryana Development Authority. The ED, however, registered a case under Section 420 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, suggesting economic offences and money laundering. 4. Applicability of anticipatory bail in economic offences under PMLA: The Court considered the Supreme Court's judgment in P. Chidambaram v. ED, which emphasized that anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly in economic offences due to their impact on the economic fabric of society. The Court noted that economic offences require a different approach, as they involve deliberate design and significant financial implications. The Court highlighted that the petitioner was involved in fraudulent transactions amounting to over Rs. 200 crores, which constituted serious economic offences. Given the nature of the allegations and the need for effective investigation, the Court concluded that granting anticipatory bail would not be appropriate. Conclusion: The Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the petitioner was involved in significant economic offences and that granting bail could impede the investigation. The Court maintained that while it has the jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail, the specific circumstances and gravity of the economic offences warranted a denial of the bail application.
|
