Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2021 (6) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (6) TMI 178 - HC - Money Laundering


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application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the first application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a duly constituted application.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.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates