2021 (7) TMI 972 - SCH - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of Bail - illegal transfers of valuable foreign exchange - allegation of transmission of more than ₹ 518 Crores to the alleged exporters from Hong Kong - HELD THAT - Without going into the question whether the rigor of Section 45 of the Act would still apply as a result of the amendment, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of bail principally for the reasons a. The length of custody undergone by the appellant as against the maximum sentence that could be visited upon the appellant under the offences in question. b. The fact that the investigation in the matter is complete and draft charges have been circulated. c. All other three co-accused have been released on bail. Subject to the appellant furnishing cash security in the sum of ₹ 25,00,000/- with two like sureties to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, the appellant shall be released on bail, subject to other conditions as the Trial Court may deem appropriate to impose - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application rejection by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
2. Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Length of custody undergone by the appellant.
4. Arguments by the appellant's counsel.
5. Arguments by the Additional Solicitor General.
6. Consideration of bail by the Supreme Court.
7. Conditions imposed for granting bail.

1. Bail Application Rejection:
The Supreme Court dealt with an appeal challenging the rejection of a bail application by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The appellant, along with others, was facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

2. Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act:
The appellant and others were facing prosecution for offenses under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The appellant had been in custody since 15.03.2019, with additional accused being added through a supplementary charge-sheet.

3. Length of Custody:
The appellant had already undergone custody for two years and four months, while the offenses carried a maximum sentence of seven years. The completion of the investigation and filing of draft charges were highlighted by the appellant's counsel.

4. Appellant's Counsel Arguments:
The appellant's counsel argued that all assets were attached, co-accused were released on bail, and the investigation was complete. The appellant's custody duration and the fact that other co-accused were granted bail were emphasized.

5. Additional Solicitor General's Arguments:
The Additional Solicitor General argued that the appellant was declared a Proclaimed Offender due to non-compliance, surrendered late, and was involved in illegal transfers of foreign exchange. Reference was made to the rigor of Section 45 and previous bail rejections.

6. Consideration of Bail by Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court considered the submissions from both parties and decided that the appellant was entitled to bail based on factors such as custody duration, completion of investigation, and the bail granted to co-accused.

7. Conditions Imposed for Bail:
The Supreme Court directed the appellant to furnish cash security and sureties, remain present at hearings, not leave Mumbai without permission, record presence monthly, and not influence witnesses. The appellant was to be produced before the court for assessing sureties within a specified timeframe.

This detailed analysis outlines the key issues, arguments presented by both sides, and the Supreme Court's decision and conditions for granting bail in the case.