9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 978 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - proceeds of crime - Seeking cancellation of bail of the opposite party namely, Debabrata Halder - HELD THAT - The Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the Court based on available material on record is required. The Court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of Trial Court. The Court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the Trial Court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial. As explained by this Court in Nimmagadda Prasad, the words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are reasonable grounds for believing which means the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. In VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court was pleased to emphasise on the issue relating to a delicate balance between the merits of appreciation while deciding a case at the stage of acquittal or conviction and an application for bail. For this purpose the phrase reasonable grounds for believing was also emphasized in relation to the material collected by the prosecution at the time of considering the bail application. Considering that the order passed by the Learned Judge, Special (CBI), Court no.1, Calcutta in ML Case No. 11 of 2022 is in violation of the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, I am of the opinion that the said order calls for interference. Accordingly, the order dated 12.04.2022 granting bail to the accused Debabrata Halder is hereby set aside. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the order granting bail to Debabrata Halder by the Special (CBI) Court. 2. Examination of the legality of bail granted to other accused. 3. Applicability of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 4. Consideration of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA. 5. Analysis of the role of each accused in the alleged money laundering scheme. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to the Order Granting Bail to Debabrata Halder: The petitioner challenged the order dated 12.04.2022 by the Special (CBI) Court, which granted bail to Debabrata Halder. The case originated from ECIR No. KLZO/03/2018 under the PMLA, 2002, involving accusations of diverting public money amounting to Rs. 173.50 crores through wrongful invocation of bank guarantees. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that the Special Court failed to consider the mandatory provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, which impose stringent conditions for granting bail. The court noted that the Special Court's reasoning for granting bail, based on the absence of a prayer for further investigation, was flawed. The court emphasized that the ED had the prerogative to conduct further investigations without seeking the court's permission. 2. Examination of the Legality of Bail Granted to Other Accused: The bail granted to accused nos. 2 to 11 was also scrutinized. The court noted that these accused had appeared in response to summons and were not arrested during the investigation. The court observed that the Special Court had exercised its discretion under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which could not be interfered with unless supervening circumstances were demonstrated. The court affirmed the bail granted to these accused, emphasizing that they had complied with the summons and there were no allegations of misuse of bail. 3. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA: Section 45 of the PMLA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The court highlighted the importance of these conditions in cases involving economic offenses, which are considered grave and require a different approach in bail matters. The court referred to various judgments, including Vijay Madanlal Choudhury & Ors. v. Union of India, to emphasize the necessity of adhering to these conditions. 4. Consideration of the Twin Conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA: The court reiterated that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA are cumulative and not alternative. The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The court criticized the Special Court for not adhering to these conditions while granting bail to Debabrata Halder. The court noted that the Special Court's reasoning was inadequate and did not address the merits of the case or the provisions of the PMLA. 5. Analysis of the Role of Each Accused in the Alleged Money Laundering Scheme: The court provided a detailed analysis of the role of each accused in the alleged money laundering scheme. Debabrata Halder was identified as the main conspirator, orchestrating the scheme with the help of associates in the NSIC and United Bank of India. The roles of other accused, including NSIC officials and bank managers, were also elaborated, highlighting their involvement in processing fake MSME units, issuing and invoking fake bank guarantees, and diverting funds. The court emphasized that the gravity of the offenses and the involvement of public funds necessitated a stringent approach in granting bail. Conclusion: The court set aside the order granting bail to Debabrata Halder, directing him to surrender within 72 hours. The bail granted to other accused was affirmed, as they had complied with summons and there were no supervening circumstances warranting interference. The court underscored the importance of adhering to the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA in cases involving economic offenses.
|
