9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1128 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - criminal conspiracy - cheating and defrauding - siphoning off the commission received from the suppliers through a complex web of fake commercial transactions through multiple companies owned by the accused persons, registered outside India - fraudulent transactions - requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner - HELD THAT - In the present case, it is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner has not joined the investigation. Rather, it is on record that the petitioner has joined the investigation more than 20 times. The statements of the witnesses U/s 50 of PMLA have already been recorded and there is only an apprehension that the petitioner would tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses but till date nothing has been placed on record to show that any such attempt has been made by the petitioner in this regard and there appears to be only an apprehension in this regard. All the documents have been seized by the respondent and have been filed alongwith the charge sheet in the court of Special Judge. Apprehension of arrest - HELD THAT - The father of the petitioner had already been arrested who was lateron granted regular bail by the Special Judge and as far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been called time and again by the respondent (ED) and when he moved his anticipatory bail application before the Ld. Special Judge, it was opposed tooth and nail by the respondent, so it cannot be said that the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner in regard to his arrest is a mere fear or it is a vague apprehension. There is nothing to show that as to for what purpose, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and the alleged offence entail maximum sentence of 7 years with fine - petitioner is allowed to be released on bail subject to condition imposed - bail application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 3. Involvement of the petitioner in the alleged fraudulent activities. 4. Apprehension of arrest and need for custodial interrogation. 5. Compliance with the investigation and cooperation by the petitioner. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Anticipatory Bail: The petitioner filed an application under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in connection with ECIR No. DLZO-I/43/2021 under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PMLA. The application was allowed, subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond of ?5,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount, and the petitioner was directed to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer (IO). 2. Allegations of Money Laundering: The case involves allegations of a criminal conspiracy by the accused, including the petitioner, to defraud IFFCO and Indian Potash Limited (IPL) by importing fertilizers at inflated prices and claiming higher subsidies from the Government of India. The accused allegedly siphoned off the commission received through fake commercial transactions and multiple companies registered outside India. The ED registered an ECIR based on a CBI case and conducted an investigation, seizing various documents and recording statements under Section 50 of the PMLA. 3. Involvement of the Petitioner: The petitioner, a director of Alankit Limited and Alankit Assignments Ltd. DMCC, was alleged to have acted as an intermediary in channelizing the ill-gotten money through different firms and companies. The investigation revealed that the petitioner’s companies received funds from entities controlled by co-accused Rajeev Saxena and transferred the proceeds of crime to various individuals and entities. Despite these allegations, the petitioner was not named in the initial charge sheet, and the Special Judge refused to summon the petitioner as a representative of the accused companies. 4. Apprehension of Arrest and Need for Custodial Interrogation: The petitioner argued that he had a reasonable apprehension of arrest due to the ongoing investigation and the arrest of his father, a co-accused. The petitioner had joined the investigation more than 20 times and cooperated by providing all necessary information and documents. The court noted that there was no evidence of the petitioner tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses. The court also observed that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not necessary, given that the investigation had already collected substantial evidence, and the alleged offense entailed a maximum sentence of 7 years with a fine. 5. Compliance with Investigation and Cooperation by the Petitioner: The court acknowledged that the petitioner had joined the investigation multiple times and cooperated with the authorities. The Special Judge had taken cognizance of the offense and summoned the accused persons, but the petitioner was not included in the array of summoned accused. The court emphasized that the investigation could not go on indefinitely and that there was no fresh evidence warranting the petitioner’s arrest. The court granted anticipatory bail, ensuring that the petitioner would continue to cooperate with the investigation and adhere to the conditions set by the court. Conclusion: The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, highlighting that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, there was no evidence of tampering or threatening witnesses, and custodial interrogation was not necessary. The petitioner was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond and directed to join the investigation as required. The court also noted that the findings were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
|
