2022 (11) TMI 1150 - SCH - Money Laundering

Grant of bail - Smuggling - Gold - diversion of 54 Kgs of primary gold which was imported by the appellant through the canalizing Agency-Metals Minerals Trading Corporation (MMTC) - predicate or scheduled offence - HELD THAT - It appears that the appellant was admitted to regular bail in connection with the aforesaid offences punishable under the provisions of Customs Act vide order dated 28.08.2018. Upon registration of the proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate on 03.02.2021, the appellant came to be arrested in said PMLA case on 28.11.2021 and has since then been in custody - The fact of the matter is that for an offence where the maximum sentence could be punishable with imprisonment for seven years, the appellant has undergone custody for about a year. It further appears that the investigation is still pending and the matter is not ripe for trial on merits before the appropriate Court. The appellant shall be produced before the concerned Court within three days and the concerned Court shall release the appellant on bail subject to such conditions as the Court may deem it appropriate to impose - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail granted to the appellant in connection with offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Grant of bail to the son of the appellant who was allegedly involved in the diversion of gold jewellery.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant who was accused of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was involved in diverting 54 Kgs of primary gold imported through a canalizing Agency for converting it into gold jewellery for export, but it was allegedly diverted in the domestic market instead. The Enforcement Directorate initiated proceedings against the appellant for these offences. Despite being in custody since 28.11.2021, with the investigation still pending and the trial not ready to commence, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail. The Court directed the appellant to appear before the concerned Court for bail subject to specific conditions, including providing details of passports, marking presence at the Enforcement Directorate's office weekly, and not interfering with the investigation.

2. The Supreme Court also addressed the bail granted to the son of the appellant, who was allegedly involved in the diversion of gold jewellery. The High Court had granted bail to the son earlier, and the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with this decision. The Court noted that beyond the general assertion that the son was assisting his father, no specific allegations were made against the son. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the bail granted to the son. The Court clarified that its observations in these petitions should not impact the merits of the case or be considered as reflecting on the submissions made by the parties.