2021 (12) TMI 677 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - seeking grant of anticipatory bail - creation of shell companies - bogus bank accounts - Section 50 of PMLA, 2002 - HELD THAT - Applicants before this Court are employees of Union Bank of India, Raipur posted at Ramsagarpara and Pandri Branches respectively. Applicants No.1 2 were posted in Ramsagarpara Branch, applicant No.3 was posted in Pandri Branch and applicant No.2 is posted at Pandri Branch. Allegations against them are that they being officials got the 446 bank accounts (in both branches) opened without properly following procedure prescribed and without verifying documents annexed along with account opening application forms. Allegation against applicants is that they verified application forms for opening of bank accounts. There is specific submission by learned counsel for both sides that there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of applicants. Considering nature of accusation in instant crime and background of applicants, without commenting anything on merits of case, the benefit of anticipatory bail granted to applicants, subject to conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC in connection with a complaint case pending for offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Consideration of the application based on the allegations against the applicants and the nature of the accusations.
3. Arguments presented by both the applicants and the non-applicant Department regarding the need for custodial interrogation and the eligibility for anticipatory bail.
4. Analysis of relevant legal provisions under the PMLA, 2002 and CrPC in determining the grant of anticipatory bail.

The judgment addresses an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC by the applicants fearing arrest in a complaint case involving offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The complaint alleged that the applicants, bank officials, were involved in opening 446 bank accounts without following proper procedures. The applicants argued that they were unaware of any offence and that no custodial interrogation was necessary. The non-applicant Department contended that the applicants were part of a scheme involving benami bank accounts and money laundering. Both sides cited legal precedents to support their arguments.

The Court considered the nature of the accusations against the applicants and the background of the case. It was noted that there was no requirement for custodial interrogation of the applicants. Despite refraining from commenting on the merits of the case, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, emphasizing their cooperation with the investigation and imposing conditions for their release upon arrest.

The applicants' senior counsel highlighted the relaxations provided under the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, 2002 for certain categories of persons, including senior citizens and infirm individuals. The Court acknowledged the applicants' status as retired or nearing retirement and extended anticipatory bail to them based on the nature of the allegations and the lack of custodial interrogation necessity.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing the release of the applicants upon arrest on the condition of executing a personal bond and complying with specified terms, including making themselves available for interrogation, refraining from influencing witnesses, ensuring a fair trial, and attending all trial court dates until the case's disposal.