9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 724 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Anticipatory bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - reimbursement of forged medical claim - HELD THAT - In the present case, during PMLA investigation, it is found that Shri Shiv Narayan Joshi has transferred an amount of Rs.36 lakhs in the account of Lokesh Paliwal on the direction of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat and this amount came out of proceeds of crime amounting to Rs.2,65,96,086/- which Shri Shiv Narayan Joshi has received as reimbursement of the forged medical claims. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.36 lakhs, Rs.22 lakhs were given to Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat by Shri Lokesh Paliwal in cash and Rs.14 lakhs were kept by Shri Lokesh Paliwal himself. Investigation has been completed. Complaint has also been filed. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Allegation made against the petitioner- Lokesh Paliwal in the instant case is of Rs.36 lakhs, Rs.22 lakhs were given to Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat by him in cash and Rs.14 lakhs were kept for himself. Property identified of petitioner Lokesh Paliwal is 50% area of Plot No.123, Verma Colony, Sector-9, Hiran Magri, Udaipur and the total value of the said property is Rs.28,23,600/- (attached upto Rs.14 lakhs). This anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is, hereby, ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, namely Lokesh Paliwal son of Shri Ramesh Chandra Paliwal, in the aforesaid F.I.R. by the concerned Investigating Officer, he shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of concerned Investigating Officer on the conditions imposed - application allowed.
Issues:
Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Analysis: 1. Facts of the Case: - The petitioner transferred Rs.36 lakhs to another individual from proceeds of crime received as reimbursement of a forged medical claim. - Statements recorded under PMLA Act, 2002 revealed the money trail and usage of the transferred amount. - Property of the petitioner was attached as proceeds of crime under PMLA. - Petitioner was not arrested during the investigation, and a complaint for trial under PMLA had been filed. 2. Petitioner's Arguments: - Petitioner's counsel argued for anticipatory bail citing lack of criminal antecedents and the completion of investigation. - Relied on judgments emphasizing the grant of anticipatory bail in non-bailable offences even after cognizance or charge-sheet. 3. Respondent's Arguments: - Respondent opposed bail application, stating the establishment of a prima facie case and the stringent approach towards economic offences. - Highlighted the provisional attachment of property derived from proceeds of crime and the burden of proof on the accused under PMLA. 4. Judicial Precedents and Orders: - Various judgments were cited by both parties to support their arguments regarding anticipatory bail in economic offences. - Previous cases where anticipatory bail was granted or arrest warrants stayed were referenced. 5. Court's Decision: - Court referred to relevant legal provisions and previous judgments emphasizing the discretion of courts to grant anticipatory bail in suitable cases. - Considering completed investigation, lack of criminal antecedents, and the nature of allegations, the court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. - Bail conditions included cooperation with the investigation, not leaving the country without court permission, and refraining from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. 6. Conclusion: - The court allowed the anticipatory bail application for the petitioner, subject to specified conditions, based on the facts and circumstances of the case and legal principles governing the grant of bail in economic offences under PMLA. This detailed analysis covers the key aspects of the judgment, including the arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal precedents, and the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the case under consideration.
|
