2022 (9) TMI 1215 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - seeking grant of bail - allegations of money laundering pertain to the year 2011-2013; at that time, the petitioner's age would be around 15-17 years - petitioner had connection with the business's day-to-day affairs or not - HELD THAT - Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the case mentioned above, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac only (INR 1,00,000/-), and furnishing one surety for Rs. Five lacs, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court - In the alternative, the petitioner may furnish a personal bond of Rs. One lac only, and hand over to the the attesting officer, a fixed deposit(s) for Rs. One lac only, made in favour of the Trial Court. Such Fixed deposits may be made from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50%, or any of the well-established and stable private banks, with the clause of automatic renewal of principal, and the interest reverting to the linked account. Such a fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the applicant's account. Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
2. Allegations of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
3. Role and involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences.
4. Conditions for granting bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 CrPC:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, apprehending arrest in connection with the FIR registered under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA, 2002. The petitioner declared no criminal antecedents in the bail application.

2. Allegations of Money Laundering under PMLA:
The Directorate of Enforcement alleged that the accused operated bogus entities and availed loans fraudulently through criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and using forged documents. The loans were not utilized for the intended purpose and were layered through various accounts, ultimately being diverted and siphoned off. The proceeds of crime were parked in immovable and movable assets, and some funds were used for purchasing properties and repaying old loans.

3. Role and Involvement of the Petitioner:
The specific role attributed to the petitioner, Suraj Seth, was that he was not an accused in the FIRs registered by the CBI and the Police but was found to be in possession of properties transferred without consideration, which were proceeds of crime. The petitioner was a minor (15-17 years old) at the time of the alleged offences and was studying in school with no connection to the business's day-to-day affairs.

4. Conditions for Granting Bail:
The Court considered the petitioner's age, the nature of allegations, and the fact that the Enforcement Directorate chose not to arrest the accused initially. The Court referred to several precedents, emphasizing the cumulative effect of circumstances justifying bail, the balance between personal freedom and the right of investigation, and the need for conditions to prevent influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, or fleeing justice.

Conclusion:
The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac and one surety for Rs. Five lacs. Alternatively, the petitioner could furnish a fixed deposit of Rs. One lac. The petitioner was required to provide personal details and execute a bond for attendance in the concerned Court(s). The petitioner was also restrained from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

← Previous Next →