2023 (5) TMI 816 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - cheating and misappropriation of money by making false promises and forging documents - HELD THAT - In Rohit Tondan 2017 (11) TMI 779 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that The Court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence under the Act. The Court ought to maintain a delicate balance between a subsequent judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. The duty of the Court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. Further the Court is required to record a finding as to the possibility of the accused committing a crime which is an offence under the Act after grant of bail. The only allegation against the applicant is of having transferred the company and there is no allegation against the applicant of having acquired any company or any other property. Even while the applicant was a director in the company there is no allegation that he was having the authority to make financial transactions and that he in fact did make any transaction which may amount to commission of any offence. What prima facie appears from the allegation levelled in the complaint is that there is absolutely no allegation of commission of any of act which may amount to commission of any offence and he has been charged with the alleged offences merely for the reason that he held the position of director in the company. From the material placed before the Court at this stage apart from being a director of the company which had been sold away to the persons accused of launching a Bike Bot scheme there appears to be no allegation that the applicant has actually committed any such act as would attract the offence described in Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. As the applicant has no previous criminal history apart from the predicate offences there appears to be no likelihood that the applicant would again indulge in commission of similar offence in case he is released on bail and no material has been plato theced in the counter affidavit to give rise to a reasonable apprehension to this effect. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.12.2020 and he has already been granted bail in the predicate offence as also in case Case Crime No. 558/2021 under Section 2 3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986 in which the applicant has been implicated after his arrest in the present case. Applicant is released on bail subject to conditions imposed - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bail Application under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
2. Allegations against the Applicant.
3. Applicant's Defense and Previous Legal Proceedings.
4. Court's Consideration and Decision on Bail.

Summary:

1. Bail Application under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA):
The present bail application was filed by the applicant seeking bail in Complaint Case No. 173/2021 arising out of ECIR/05/PMLA/LKZO/2019, under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, at the Police Station Directorate of Enforcement, District Lucknow.

2. Allegations against the Applicant:
The case was initiated based on a complaint by an Assistant Director of the Directorate of Enforcement, citing 25 FIRs against M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Ltd. (GIPL) and its promoters for cheating and misappropriation of funds. The applicant, a director in various companies related to Pantel Group, was alleged to have received approximately Rs. 600 crore from the public and GIPL. Despite a share purchase agreement and subsequent settlement agreement, the agreed amount was not paid, leading to disputes.

3. Applicant's Defense and Previous Legal Proceedings:
The applicant claimed innocence, stating he was not named in any FIRs and had no criminal history besides the predicate offense. He had already transferred the companies before the FIRs were lodged and had no financial authority in the company. The applicant had appeared in response to multiple summons and was arrested despite informing the authorities of his inability to appear due to personal reasons. He was granted bail in the predicate offenses and another case under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

4. Court's Consideration and Decision on Bail:
The court considered the facts and submissions, noting that the applicant was only alleged to be a director in the companies transferred to the accused persons. There was no allegation of financial transactions by the applicant himself. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Rohit Tondon v. Directorate of Enforcement, emphasizing the need to balance between acquittal and conviction while granting bail. The court found no prima facie evidence of the applicant committing an offense under the PMLA and noted the absence of any likelihood of the applicant re-offending. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicant, imposing conditions to ensure compliance with the legal process.

Conclusion:
The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail with conditions to prevent tampering with evidence, pressurizing witnesses, and ensuring appearance in court.