9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 140 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of anticipatory bail - predicate offence - proceeds of crime - allegation is that the accused-applicant took 30% commission in cash from the said company, inter alia, and passed the bills and he was instrumental in awarding the tender to the said company from where the medicines were purchased on exorbitant rates - HELD THAT - It would be apt to take note of the relevant paragraph of the judgement/order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Parvathi Kollur and another Vs. State by Directorate of Enforcement 2022 (8) TMI 1256 - SC ORDER where it was held that the High Court was not right in setting aside the discharge order despite the fact that the accused No. 1 had already been acquitted in relation to the scheduled offence and the present appellants were not accused of any scheduled offence. This Court is of the view that the accused-applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail - Let accused-applicant, Mehar Singh be enlarged on anticipatory bail with the conditions imposed - application allowed.
Issues:
Bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Analysis: 1. Allegation and Application: The accused-applicant filed a bail application anticipating arrest in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The complaint alleged that the accused-applicant favored a pharmaceutical company by taking a 30% commission in cash and awarding tenders for purchasing medicines at exorbitant rates under a government scheme. 2. Legal Contention: The counsel for the accused argued that since the accused-applicant was not named in the FIR and was cited as a witness for the predicate offense, he cannot be accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act unless he has accumulated proceeds of crime. Reference was made to judgments of the Supreme Court in similar cases. 3. Prosecution Stand: The counsel for the Enforcement Directorate contended that the case for the predicate offense and the complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are distinct. Even if the accused is not named in the predicate offense, prosecution can be maintained if proceeds of crime are found to be accumulated by the accused. 4. Judicial Review: The court examined the submissions of both parties and referenced a Supreme Court judgment in a similar matter. The judgment highlighted that the offense under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is dependent on illegal gain of property from criminal activity related to a scheduled offense. If the accused is acquitted of the scheduled offense, no offense of money laundering can be established. 5. Decision and Conditions: Considering the facts and legal precedents, the court granted anticipatory bail to the accused-applicant. Conditions were imposed, including making themselves available for interrogation, refraining from influencing witnesses, not leaving India without court permission, and any other conditions as per Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. 6. Conclusion: The anticipatory bail application was allowed based on the court's analysis of the legal contentions, precedents, and the specific circumstances of the case. The judgment provided a detailed explanation of the legal principles governing the application for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, ensuring a fair and just decision in the matter.
|
