2022 (9) TMI 218 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of regular bail - Smuggling - Opium - country made pistol - magazine having 5 live rounds - spare magazine having six live rounds - HELD THAT - The FIR in the present case was registered on 31.05.2022 under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA, Section 25 of Arms Act and under Section 18 of NDPS Act. As per the reply submitted on behalf of the State, offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA have been deleted upon the verification by Surender Singh, HPS, ACP-III, Panchkula. So, now the FIR in question is with regard to Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 18 of NDPS Act. As per the allegations appearing on record 432 grams of opium was recovered from the possession of petitioner Anju Bhalla while 265 grams of opium was recovered from the petitioner Anjali Bhalla. The aforesaid quantity of opium comes under non-commercial quantity of contraband and thus the embargo provided in Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to the instant case. All the recoveries have already been effected in this case and after completion of investigation police has presented the challan but charges are yet to be framed - It will take considerable time for the trial to conclude, after the framing of charges. Coaccused Gaurav Pahwa who was apprehended at the spot along with both the petitioners and from whom cash worth Rs.1.75 crores was recovered, has been granted concession of regular bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide order dated 13.06.2022. This Court is of the view that no purpose is going to be served by prolonging the judicial incarceration of both the petitioners for any further period. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed and the petitioners namely Anju Bhalla and Anjali Bhalla are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petition for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving FIR under PMLA, Arms Act, and NDPS Act.

Analysis:
The petitioners, wives of individuals involved in a business dispute, were seeking regular bail in a case where they were implicated along with others in possession of cash, opium, and firearms. The senior counsel argued that the recoveries were falsely planted, emphasizing the improbability of such respectable family members carrying contraband. It was also highlighted that the family business was managed by someone else, making the prosecution story seem dubious. The petitioners had been in custody since the incident, and with the investigation completed and charges pending, there was no need for further judicial custody.

The State counsel opposed the bail, presenting information that the accused were involved in fraudulent activities and had failed to account for the recovered items. While the charges under PMLA were dropped, the case now focused on violations of the Arms Act and NDPS Act. The State counsel acknowledged that the co-accused had been granted bail and that the investigation had been concluded, with the challan presented. However, the matter was also forwarded to the Directorate of Enforcement for further action.

After considering the submissions, the court noted the non-commercial quantity of contraband involved and the bail granted to other accused individuals. Given the circumstances and the prolonged custody of the petitioners, the court deemed it unnecessary to continue their incarceration. Therefore, both petitioners were granted regular bail on the condition of furnishing bail and surety bonds. They were also directed not to interfere with witnesses, tamper with evidence, or leave the country without court permission. Importantly, the court clarified that its decision did not reflect on the case's merits and would not impact any proceedings by other agencies related to the recoveries.