9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 178 - HC - Money LaunderingGrant of regular bail - Money Laundering - reverse burden of proof on the accused under Section 24 of the PML Act - allegation against this applicant is of very serious nature that the applicant being an IAS officer misused his position and power and made unlawful gain - HELD THAT - On the basis of the report of Adjudicating Authority dated 27.06.2018 in which it has been held that the properties of M/s Prime Ispat Ltd. which has been attached by the PAO is not involved in the money laundering. It is the submission of the respondent side that this report is under challenge before the Appellate Authority but for the present there is no order of the Appellate Authority setting aside or varying the report of the Adjudicating Authority. Under the present scenario the applicant has the report of Adjudicating Authority in his favour which has not been varied or set aside by the Appellate Authority so far. There is no specific report present to show that the applicant has tampered with the investigation or made any manipulation during pendency of investigation/ enquiry since year 2010. There is no reason to hold that the applicant may abscond in case he is granted bail. The maximum punishment which can be imposed is upto seven years. The applicant is in judicial custody since 09.11.2020 therefore this appears to be no further requirement of his detention for custodial interrogation or for any other purpose of investigation. It would be proper to grant bail to the applicant at this stage - Bail application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Allegations under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act). 3. Exoneration by the Adjudicating Authority and its implications. 4. Applicability of Section 45 of the PML Act. 5. Arguments for and against the grant of bail. Detailed Analysis: 1. Second Bail Application under Section 439 of CrPC: The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the first application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a duly constituted application. 2. Allegations under Sections 3 & 4 of the PML Act: The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. ECIR/RPSZO/05/2013 for offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the PML Act. The allegations involve money laundering of proceeds of crime. The applicant, an IAS officer, allegedly misused his position to make unlawful gains, opened fake bank accounts in villagers' names, and invested the proceeds in a shell company, Prime Ispat Ltd. 3. Exoneration by the Adjudicating Authority: The applicant was exonerated by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 6(1) of the PML Act on 14.05.2018, which held that the applicant was not involved in money laundering. The Economic Offences Wing initially filed a closure report but later withdrew it at the Enforcement Directorate's request. The Supreme Court's judgment in Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal & another was cited, which held that criminal prosecution cannot continue if the Adjudicating Authority exonerates the accused on merits. 4. Applicability of Section 45 of the PML Act: The Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India declared Section 45(1) of the PML Act unconstitutional as it imposed stringent conditions for bail, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the bail consideration must follow the normal procedure without the twin conditions of Section 45. This was supported by various judgments, including those from the High Courts of Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, and Patna. 5. Arguments for and Against the Grant of Bail: The applicant argued that he is innocent, has been falsely implicated, and has not misused his liberty since the case's registration in 2013. The respondent opposed the bail, citing the serious nature of the offence, the applicant's attempts to influence the investigation, and the reverse burden of proof under Section 24 of the PML Act. The respondent also referenced several judgments where bail was denied in similar cases. Conclusion: The court considered the exoneration by the Adjudicating Authority, the absence of any appellate order setting aside this exoneration, and the applicant's compliance with investigation requirements. The court noted that the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PML Act were not applicable, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Nikesh Tarachand Shah. Considering these factors, the court granted bail to the applicant, directing his release on a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000 each. Order: The bail application under Section 439 of CrPC was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing the required bonds and sureties.
|
