9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 13 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Regular bail - Money Laundering - scheduled offences - commission of fraud with the Bank of India - alleged offence under section 3 read with section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and punishable under section 4 of the PMLA - twin conditions of section 45 of PMLA fulfilled or not - HELD THAT - Admittedly the petitioner is Director of five companies namely, M/s Dwarikadhish Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Sriram Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., represented through Gyan Prakash Sarawgi (petitioner), M/s Global Traders (proprietorship firm), Badri Kedar Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and Sunbeam Dealers Pvt. Ltd., represented through Amit Sarawgi and the C.B.I. has registered the case and subsequently the E.D. has c o me into the picture and registered the ECIR complaint against the petitioner and others. In the investigation it has come that the petitioner has taken loan in the name of Vikash Khetawat, Amit Sarawgi and Abhishek Agarwal and others - It is strange that when the petitioner was having the company why the loan in question was not taken in the name of the said company whereas the private persons have been involved who are alleged to be the employee and close relatives of the petitioner. However, this fact has been disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that the loan in question was taken in the name of the company itself. There is no doubt as has been discussed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2019 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT , that even in economic offences the bail is a rule, however, the Court before granting the bail is required to come to the definite conditions and look into the graveness of the nature of the crime. Requirement to comply with twin conditions of section 45 of PMLA - HELD THAT - Admittedly the petitioner is not under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm and the proviso thereof speaks that if the money is below Rs.One crore the rigor can be relaxed. In the case in hand, there is allegation of Rs.77 crores of diversion of the loan amount - In the case of ROHIT TANDON VERSUS THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 2017 (11) TMI 779 - SUPREME COURT , it is said that economic offence is said to be white collar crime/ the economic offenders are having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole It is a white collar crime which is done in a well planned manner and they are grievous in nature and against the society. The Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner - bail application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Regular bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 2. Allegations of fraud and money laundering involving multiple FIRs and charge sheets. 3. Compliance with Section 45 of the PMLA. 4. Arguments regarding the petitioner's cooperation and lack of flight risk. 5. Counterarguments by the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) emphasizing the severity of the crime and the petitioner's key role. Detailed Analysis: 1. Regular Bail Application under PMLA The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with E.C.I.R. Case No.01 of 2022 for offences under Section 3 read with Section 70 of the PMLA, punishable under Section 4. The case is pending before the Special Judge, C.B.I. cum Special Judge under the PMLA, at Ranchi. 2. Allegations of Fraud and Money Laundering The C.B.I. registered three FIRs alleging fraud amounting to Rs.31.24 crores with the Bank of India. The FIRs were: - FIR No. RC0932018S0007 dated 16.07.2018 for Rs.10.37 crores. - FIR No. RC0932018S0008 dated 20.08.2018 for Rs.8.03 crores. - FIR No. RC0932019S0001 dated 10.01.2019 for Rs.12.84 crores. The E.D. initiated inquiries as these offences were scheduled under the PMLA. The investigation revealed that the petitioner, along with associates, defrauded multiple banks, with the total amount exceeding Rs.77.36 crores. The funds obtained for various purposes were diverted to M/s Sarawgi Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., engaged in real estate, indicating money laundering. 3. Compliance with Section 45 of PMLA The court highlighted the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA for granting bail. The section requires: - The Public Prosecutor's opportunity to oppose the bail application. - The court's satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors., emphasizing the need to consider the gravity of economic offences and the stringent view towards granting bail in such cases. 4. Petitioner's Cooperation and Lack of Flight Risk The petitioner's counsel argued that: - The petitioner cooperated with the investigation. - The petitioner was in custody for about eight months. - The loan was obtained with valid security and collateral. - The case involved fund diversion, not misappropriation, and lacked involvement of tainted money. - The petitioner posed no flight risk. The counsel cited the Supreme Court's decisions in P. Chidambaram Versus Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of U.P. Another, arguing that bail should be granted considering the petitioner's cooperation and the absence of immediate need for custody. 5. Counterarguments by E.D. The E.D.'s counsel contended that: - The petitioner was the main accused and the Director of five companies involved. - The loans were taken in the names of close associates and employees, indicating an intention to cheat from the beginning. - The loan amounts were diverted for purposes other than those stated, constituting a serious economic offence. - The rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA applied, and the petitioner did not meet the conditions for bail relaxation. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's observation in Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, emphasizing the severity and societal impact of white-collar crimes. Judgment: The court concluded that the petitioner did not meet the conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, given the gravity of the allegations and the amount involved (Rs.77 crores). The petitioner's prayer for regular bail was rejected, and the bail application (B.A. No. 8470 of 2022) was dismissed.
|
