2021 (5) TMI 84 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of Bail - schedules offences - Legal source of income - disproportionate assets of the petitioner and his family - misuse of post and office made up properties worth of more than ₹ 14 Crores - HELD THAT - In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has earned properties, according to the complaint, valued more than ₹ 14 Crores, which was considered to be disproportionate assets of the petitioner and his family. The ACB, Jaipur calculated that the petitioner has earned properties which were 372.16% more than of his known/legal source of income. Further as per the statement made by the learned Additional Solicitor General on the instructions received from officers of the department, properties worth ₹ 30 Crores have been identified by the E.D. during further investigation. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, looking to the seriousness of the offence alleged against the petitioner, no case is made out to release the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
- Allegations of disproportionate assets and money laundering
- Comparison with properties earned and known/legal sources of income
- Arguments for and against bail based on severity of allegations and ongoing investigation

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner was arrested in connection with Sessions Case No.2/2021 for offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act of 2002 related to an ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur.

2. The case involved allegations of disproportionate assets and money laundering. An FIR was registered against the petitioner and co-accused persons under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code. Charge-sheets were filed by the ACB, Jaipur, and investigations were conducted leading to further FIRs and charges against the petitioner.

3. The investigation revealed that properties valued at more than ?14 Crores were earned by the petitioner, considered disproportionate to his known/legal sources of income. The Enforcement Directorate identified properties worth ?30 Crores during further investigation, indicating a significant disparity. The seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation were crucial factors in the bail decision.

4. The petitioner's counsel argued for bail, citing previous instances of bail granted to co-accused and legal precedents. However, the Additional Solicitor General opposed the bail application, highlighting the magnitude of the alleged financial misconduct and the ongoing investigation uncovering properties worth ?35 Crores linked to the petitioner.

5. After considering the arguments and evidence, the Court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing the substantial value of properties acquired beyond known income sources and the severity of the allegations. The decision was based on the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner, indicating that bail was not warranted under Section 439 Cr.P.C.