9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1232 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - diversion/misappropriation of the public money and causing huge loss to YES Bank - allegations of granting various credit facilities to several companies by not following the banking norms thereby causing huge amount of losses to the YES Bank in lieu of illegal gratification - applicability and interpretation of case of SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANR. 2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT - HELD THAT - The Supreme Court in Satinder Kumar Antil 2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT took note of the continuous supply of cases seeking bail after filing of the final report on a wrong interpretation of Section 170 of the Code and an endeavor was made to categorize the types of offenses to be used as guidelines for the future. The Supreme Court in Siddharth V State of UP, 2021 (8) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT clarified that it is not necessary for the police to arrest the accused prior to filing of chargesheet nor could the Court direct that the accused be arrested and be produced before it at the time of filing of chargesheet. The applicant is implicated in PMLA which was enacted to prevent money-laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money-laundering and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 45 provides that offences punishable under PMLA are cognizable and non-bailable also provides stringent conditions in grant of bail. The applicant was implicated in present criminal complaint filed by the respondent/ED and arrayed as accused no 2. The investigating officer consciously did not arrest the applicant. The applicant participated in investigation as his three statements under section 50 PMLA were recorded. The respondent also did not allege that the applicant neither participated nor cooperated in investigation. The concerned Special Court after taking cognizance on present criminal complaint ordered for summoning of the accused persons including the applicant. The investigating officer even after filing of present complaint did not apply for custody of the applicant - There is legal force in argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel of the applicant that applicant is entitled to bail in view of observations/legal proposition as laid down by the Supreme Court in Satinder Kumar Antil. It is not mandate of section 170 of the Code that if the accused is not taken into custody or arrested during investigation can be arrested or taken into custody after appearance in court post summoning order particularly when neither investigation agency nor prosecution agency sought arrest of accused. The arguments advanced by the learned Special Counsel for the respondent that the applicant has misinterpreted para no 65 of Satinder Kumar Antil is misplaced. There is no force in argument advanced by the learned Special Counsel for the respondent that the applicant before grant of bail required to pass test of 45 of PMLA. The position would have been different, had the applicant arrested during investigation. The investigating agency as mentioned hereinabove consciously preferred not to arrest the applicant during investigation or post filing of charge sheet. The arguments advanced and case law relied on by the Special Counsel for the respondent are considered in right perspective to the given facts and circumstances but they do not provide much legal help to the respondent in opposing present bail application. The applicant is admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court on the conditions imposed - the present bail application is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Interpretation and applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in Satinder Kumar Antil v. CBI. 3. Compliance with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for granting bail. 4. Consideration of merits for granting bail in economic offences under special statutes. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The court examined whether Section 170 of the Code mandates the arrest of an accused before filing a charge sheet. The Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State of UP clarified that it is not necessary for the police to arrest the accused prior to filing the charge sheet, nor could the Court direct that the accused be arrested and produced before it at the time of filing the charge sheet. The court reiterated that if the prosecution does not require custody of the accused, there is no need for an arrest when forwarding the case to the magistrate under Section 170. 2. Interpretation and Applicability of the Supreme Court's Judgment in Satinder Kumar Antil v. CBI: The applicant argued that as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Satinder Kumar Antil, he is entitled to bail since he was not arrested during the investigation and cooperated fully. The court noted that the Supreme Court categorized offences and provided guidelines for granting bail. The applicant fell under Category C, which includes offences under special acts like PMLA. The court emphasized that the bail application should be decided on merits, considering the stringent provisions of the special acts. 3. Compliance with Section 45 of the PMLA for Granting Bail: The court discussed the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, which requires that the Public Prosecutor be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application and that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court noted that these conditions apply when the bail application is filed after the arrest during the investigation or under Section 438 of the Code. Since the applicant was not arrested during the investigation, these stringent conditions were not applicable in this case. 4. Consideration of Merits for Granting Bail in Economic Offences Under Special Statutes: The court considered the gravity of the offence, the severity of the punishment, and the applicant's cooperation during the investigation. The court observed that the applicant was not arrested during the investigation, cooperated fully, and there was no allegation of non-cooperation. The court also noted that the applicant was taken into custody only after the dismissal of his bail application by the Special Judge. The court found that the applicant's case was different from the co-accused who was arrested during the investigation and denied bail. Conclusion: The court allowed the bail application, emphasizing that the applicant was not arrested during the investigation, cooperated fully, and the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were not applicable. The court granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions such as not influencing witnesses, keeping the mobile phone number provided to the Investigating Officer active, not indulging in criminal activities, and not leaving the country without prior permission from the trial/special court.
|
