2021 (6) TMI 217 - HC - Money Laundering

Validity of second Bail application - seeking grant of regular bail - scheduled offences - preparation of forged documents and records by In-charge Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division Bilaspur - HELD THAT - The Supreme Court in the matter of ROHIT TANDON VERSUS THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 2017 (11) TMI 779 - SUPREME COURT has held that economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 03.01.2020 taking into consideration the gravity of offence and the nature of allegation against the applicant. After dismissal of first bail application, there are no change in circumstances - the second application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The applicant filed a second bail application seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to being in custody since 11.10.2018 for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, as a public servant, misused his position to cause financial loss and amass wealth through corrupt means, leading to charges under PMLA.
3. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was falsely implicated, citing medical reports showing serious ailments and vulnerability to COVID-19. They emphasized the delay in trial and the applicant's deteriorating health condition.
4. The respondent opposed the bail application, stating that the first application was dismissed on merit, and there were no significant changes in circumstances. They argued for the seriousness of economic offences and the need for stringent consideration.
5. The Court referred to precedents highlighting the seriousness of economic offences and the burden of proof on the accused regarding the proceeds of crime.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence and the nature of allegations, the Court rejected the second bail application, finding no change in circumstances from the previous dismissal.

This detailed analysis covers the legal arguments, medical conditions, precedents cited, and the Court's reasoning leading to the rejection of the bail application.