2021 (11) TMI 557 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - commission of a serious economic offence of money laundering - offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case; specially, to the fact that the petitioner had not challenged the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the trial court. Petitioner is involved in serious economic offence, the principle of law enunciated by Hon ble Apex Court in P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT , but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is not considered to be a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case related to money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with a complaint related to money laundering. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, as his name was not mentioned in the FIR, and he was not a party to any agreement. The police submitted a final negative report after investigation, but the trial court still took cognizance against the petitioner and others. The petitioner claimed that he had informed the complainant about legal constraints preventing him from sending a large amount in foreign currency, which led to the complaint before the Enforcement Directorate. The petitioner had joined the investigation and cooperated by narrating the entire incident.

The trial court had issued an arrest warrant without providing a clear reason, and the petitioner's application to convert the non-bailable warrant into a bailable one was rejected. The petitioner's counsel cited judgments by the Supreme Court to support the bail application. However, the respondent argued that the bail application was misconceived and should be dismissed due to the serious economic offense of money laundering. The respondent alleged that the petitioner, in association with another individual, misused power of attorney to transfer property and deposit a significant amount in various accounts.

The respondent relied on several judgments to oppose the bail application, emphasizing the gravity of the offense. After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the record, the court found that the petitioner had not challenged the trial court's rejection order and was involved in a serious economic offense. Referring to legal principles established by the Supreme Court in previous cases, the court decided not to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, ultimately dismissing the bail application.