2023 (3) TMI 894 - HC - Money Laundering

Misuse of bank accounts - It has been alleged that by using the Photographs documents submitted by the employee provided at the time of appointment, Raj Kumar Goenka and Ashok Kumar Goenka, fraudulently opened several Bank accounts in their name - HELD THAT - This Court has gone through the facts and circumstance of the case as also the orders passed in case of the two accused persons namely Raj Kumar Goenka and Ratan Kumar Goenka and is of the belief that since both the aforesaid persons have been extended relief, although Raj Kumar Goenka had to take recourse to bail while Ratan Kumar Goenka succeeded before Hon ble Apex Court, the case will continue and ultimately the accused persons including the petitioner herein will have to face the music, this Court is inclined to grant him the same relief with conditions. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Sub-ordinate court within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,00,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Special Trial (PMLA) No.07 of 2020/PMLA SC No.07 of 2020 in ECIR No.PT20/01/2017 to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Patna, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Apprehension of arrest in connection with a special trial under PMLA, 2002.
2. Allegations of misuse of bank accounts and fraudulent activities.
3. Anticipatory bail and relief granted to co-accused.
4. Granting bail to the petitioner with specific conditions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner was apprehensive of arrest in connection with a special trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The case involved allegations of misuse of bank accounts by the employer of the complainant, leading to the fraudulent opening of multiple bank accounts and substantial cash deposits amounting to Rs.13,01,94,512. The offenses committed were considered as 'Scheduled offenses' under the PMLA, leading to the initiation of an investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement, Patna Zonal office.

2. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the main accused, Raj Kumar Goenka, was managing the entire affair, resulting in allegations against him. Raj Kumar Goenka was initially refused anticipatory bail, leading to his judicial custody. However, he later secured bail. The anticipatory bail of another accused, Ratan Kumar Goenka, was rejected, but he obtained relief from the Supreme Court, setting a precedent for similar relief for the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Goenka.

3. The High Court considered the cases of both Raj Kumar Goenka and Ratan Kumar Goenka, where one secured bail and the other obtained relief from the Supreme Court. Given these precedents, the Court was inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Goenka, if arrested or surrendered within four weeks. The bail amount was set at Rs.10,00,000 with specific conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., including providing sureties, regular appearances before the court, non-inducement of witnesses, and refraining from criminal activities.

4. In the final decision, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Goenka, with specified conditions to ensure compliance and cooperation with the legal proceedings. The judgment highlighted the importance of following the bail conditions diligently to avoid cancellation and emphasized the need for the petitioner to adhere to the legal requirements and cooperate with the authorities throughout the trial process.