2022 (6) TMI 587 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of Bail - Money Laundering - collection of huge amount of money from general public - Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - Since the petitioner is a resident of Delhi and there is likelihood of flight risk and misuse of the liberty of bail and the trial is likely to suffer, the present case does not inspire the confidence of this Court to use the judicial discretion to grant bail in favour of the petitioner. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the petitioner, the stringent punishment prescribed and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has no role in the offence alleged or not likely to commit any such offence, which is not possible to record in this case. The prayer for bail is devoid of any merit - Bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for release on bail in connection with a Prevention of Money Laundering Act case.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a shareholder in a company accused of money laundering, sought bail based on limited involvement in fund withdrawal. The petitioner cooperated with investigative authorities, and no progress was noted in the case for 21 months post-arrest. The defense argued for bail due to the lack of substantial evidence against the petitioner and his cooperation during the investigation.

The State opposed bail, citing strong evidence, the severity of the offense affecting gullible citizens, and the risk of the accused fleeing. The court referenced precedents emphasizing the seriousness of economic offenses and the need for a different approach to bail in such cases. Economic offenses were highlighted as deliberate acts with significant consequences for the community and the economy at large.

The court considered the Supreme Court's stance on economic offenses, emphasizing the need for a stringent approach to bail due to deep-rooted conspiracies and substantial public fund losses. The nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, and public interest were crucial factors in bail decisions for economic offenses. The court also referred to a case involving money laundering, stressing the importance of thorough investigations without pre-arrest bail protections hindering the process.

The court denied bail, citing the risk of flight due to the petitioner's residence in Delhi, potential misuse of liberty, and trial disruption. Given the gravity of the accusation, evidence against the petitioner, and the stringent punishment involved, bail was deemed inappropriate. The court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and complete the trial within six months. The bail application was dismissed, emphasizing the need for a swift trial process in economic offense cases.