9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 801 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking pre-arrest Bail - Money Laundering - cheating gullible depositors by attracting them towards different schemes of money investment with false promise of providing high returns - creation and growth of ponzi firms - HELD THAT - Existence of a prima-facie case regarding nexus of the petitioner with the Saradha Group cannot be denied. Grant of bail to him by the Supreme Court of India in another case also cannot afford him a ground to seek pre-arrest bail in the present case, inasmuch as he was granted bail in the said case solely on health ground while he was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Bhubaneswar. Admittedly, he has since been discharged from the said hospital. There is no reproach on contention of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to invoking the jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the person accused of committing economic offences, inasmuch as there is no such prohibition to entertain such prayer in respect of the accused persons indicted in economic offences in Section 438 of Cr.P.C., provided the offence committed is non-bailable one. It is only in respect of the offences as enumerated under Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C. and also in respect of offence under special statute wherein jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been specifically ousted, even if the offences are non-bailable, a person cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking prearrest bail. Since in this case the petitioner has been indicted in an economic offence which is of serious in nature and the larger angle of conspiracy with regard to patronage of political and other persons in growth of such ponzi firms are required to be unearthed, no effective investigation can be made by the police by enlarging the petitioner on pre-arrest bail, even if he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation by remaining on pre-arrest bail. The allegation being serious in nature and the offence committed being economic offence and the petitioner is being investigated, custodial interrogation is much more fruitful as held by the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT , this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out no case for his release on pre-arrest bail, more particularly when present is prima-facie not a case where the allegations brought against the petitioner can be said to be frivolous or groundless. There are no merit in the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of PMLA Act to the petitioner. 2. Jurisdiction of the Special Court under PMLA Act at Bhubaneswar. 3. Jurisdiction and bona fides of C.B.I. to seek arrest/custody of the petitioner. 4. Necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation. 5. Grant of pre-arrest bail in economic offences. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of PMLA Act to the petitioner: The petitioner questioned the applicability of the PMLA Act to his case, arguing that neither he nor the accused persons were prosecuted under the PMLA Act. However, the court found this contention without substance due to Section 44 of the PMLA Act, which allows the PMLA Court to try scheduled offences if a case is registered under the PMLA Act for proceeds of crime of such scheduled offence. Section 71 of the PMLA Act has an overriding effect on other provisions. 2. Jurisdiction of the Special Court under PMLA Act at Bhubaneswar: The petitioner contended that the PMLA Court could not have independently registered the case for trial. The court clarified that the PMLA Act does not mandate automatic transfer of all cases registered for scheduled offences to the PMLA Court. It is only when the Enforcement Directorate seeks commitment for speedy disposal that the case is committed to the PMLA Court. The court found the commitment and prosecution by the CBI sustainable. 3. Jurisdiction and bona fides of C.B.I. to seek arrest/custody of the petitioner: The petitioner argued against the CBI's bona fides in seeking his arrest, citing previous non-custodial interrogations. The court rejected this argument, noting the prima facie case regarding the petitioner's nexus with the Saradha Group and the Supreme Court's directive for the CBI to investigate larger conspiracies and money trails. 4. Necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation: The CBI emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the petitioner's involvement and larger conspiracies. The court agreed, referencing the Supreme Court's stance in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, which highlighted the importance of custodial interrogation in economic offences for effective investigation. 5. Grant of pre-arrest bail in economic offences: The petitioner cited Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) to argue that there is no restriction on granting pre-arrest bail in economic offences. The court acknowledged this but emphasized that economic offences require a different approach. The court referenced P. Chidambaram's case, stating that anticipatory bail in economic offences could hamper effective investigation. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner had not made a case for pre-arrest bail. The allegations were serious, involving economic offences with significant social ramifications. The court emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation to unearth larger conspiracies and the involvement of influential persons. Consequently, the application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed.
|
