2021 (11) TMI 366 - DSC - Money Laundering

Grant of regular bail - Diversion of funds - rejection of bail application on the ground that investigation is not complete and applicant/accused may influence the fair course of investigation but now the circumstances have changed as complaint u/s 45 of PMLA has been filed by the investigating agency - HELD THAT - The material available on record makes out a formidable case of money laundering against the applicant/accused. The submission that pre-trial detention is antithetic to the Presumption of Innocence is infact missing the woods for the trees. Pretrial detention is neither preventive nor punitive. Pre-trial detention is infact an incident of Fair Trial. There may be cases wherein releasing the accused would enable him to jeopardize the course of fair trial by attempting to wipe out the traces of crime. Therefore, in appropriate cases, pre-trial detention becomes indispensable to ensure a free and fair trial. All the material witnesses in the instant case are family members/relatives/friends/close acquaintance of the applicant/accused. They are apparently working under his direct influence. The applicant/accused being a qualified Chartered Accountant and an influential man in all likelihood would attempt to wipe off his footsteps to jeopardize not only the fair trial but the crucial aspects of pending investigations - Since the charge-sheet in the instant matter has already been filed, merely because ED is still further investigating the matter on some counts, the statutory right of bail u/s 167 CrPC is not available to the accused. The indefeasible right of the accused to claim statutory bail comes to an end once the charge-sheet is filed. Considering the nature of offence, seriousness of allegations and a strong possibility of applicant/accused attempting to influence the course of trial by influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence, the bail application is bereft of any merits - Application dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of Regular Bail
2. Cooperation with Investigation
3. Change in Circumstances
4. Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC
5. Nature of Offence and Severity
6. Risk of Tampering with Evidence and Influencing Witnesses
7. Health Conditions of the Accused
8. Economic Offences and Bail Considerations

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Regular Bail:
The applicant/accused sought regular bail, arguing that he has cooperated with the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation. The court noted that the first bail application was rejected on the grounds that the investigation was incomplete and the accused might influence the investigation.

2. Cooperation with Investigation:
The applicant/accused claimed full cooperation with the investigation, asserting that he was not interrogated after being sent to judicial custody. The defense argued that since the complaint under Section 45 of PMLA has been filed and the court has taken cognizance, the accused should be granted bail.

3. Change in Circumstances:
The defense highlighted a change in circumstances, primarily the filing of the charge-sheet, which they argued should warrant bail. However, the court held that the mere filing of the charge-sheet is not sufficient to grant bail, as it does not diminish the allegations or the evidence collected.

4. Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC:
The defense argued for statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, claiming the complaint filed was incomplete. The court ruled that since the charge-sheet has been filed, the statutory right to bail under Section 167 CrPC is not available.

5. Nature of Offence and Severity:
The court emphasized that the nature of accusations, evidence, and the gravity of the offense must be considered while granting bail. The court noted that money laundering is a serious economic offense requiring a different approach.

6. Risk of Tampering with Evidence and Influencing Witnesses:
The court expressed concerns that releasing the accused could jeopardize the fair trial by tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The court noted that the material witnesses are closely related to the accused and could be under his influence.

7. Health Conditions of the Accused:
The defense cited the accused's health conditions, including acute diabetes and hypertension, as a ground for bail. However, the court did not find this sufficient to override the risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

8. Economic Offences and Bail Considerations:
The defense argued that economic offenses should not be classified separately for bail considerations and cited various legal precedents. The court, however, maintained that economic offenses like money laundering require stringent scrutiny due to their serious nature.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the bail application, stating that the filing of the charge-sheet does not automatically entitle the accused to bail. The court highlighted the risk of the accused influencing the trial and tampering with evidence, given his influential position and the close relationship with the material witnesses. The court also noted that the statutory right to bail under Section 167 CrPC is not applicable once the charge-sheet is filed. The application was disposed of accordingly and the order was to be uploaded on the court website immediately.

← Previous Next →