2023 (9) TMI 360 - SC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - illegal mining - transportation of 1844 trucks/vehicles carrying stone chips - HELD THAT - In the instant facts, the nature of the allegation in the present proceedings has been taken note. In that circumstance, it is seen that the petitioner was arrested on 05.08.2022 and he has spent a little over one year of incarceration. The chargesheet is filed and the Trial Court having framed the charges, no doubt has started the trial and it is stated across the bar that five witnesses have been examined but it is also stated that in all 42 witnesses are cited to be examined. In that circumstance, taking into consideration all aspects of the matter and also making it subject to the condition that the petitioner shall diligently participate in the trial without interfering in the course of justice and also complying with the other appropriate conditions to be imposed by the trial court, the prayer is accepted. The petitioner to be enlarged on bail subject to appropriate conditions being imposed by the trial court and the petitioner diligently adhering to such conditions, as also not being required in any other case. For the purpose of imposition of such conditions and issue of release order the petitioner shall be produced forthwith before the trial court - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the rejection of a bail application by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Bail Application No.13289 of 2022, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Allegation of Involvement in Money Laundering

The petitioner filed a bail application in relation to a case registered under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The allegation against the petitioner was his involvement in the transportation of 1844 trucks carrying stone chips during a specific period. It was claimed that a large sum of cash was deposited in the petitioner's bank account, which the respondents considered as proceeds of crime, leading to the petitioner being included as an accused in the case.

Issue 2: Justification for Bail

The petitioner's senior counsel argued that the deposited amount was not related to the alleged illegal activity period, thus should not be classified as proceeds from crime. It was contended that the inclusion of the petitioner as an accused was unjustified, warranting bail.

Issue 3: Opposition to Bail

The Additional Solicitor General opposed bail, alleging that the petitioner was aiding illegal mining activities orchestrated by the main accused. It was claimed that the deposited amount was only a fraction of the ill-gotten money involved in the illegal activities, justifying the petitioner's arrest and continued custody.

Issue 4: Decision on Bail Application

After considering the contentions of both parties and reviewing the basic facts necessary for a bail application, the Court noted that the deposited amount predated the alleged illegal activity period. The petitioner provided an explanation during the investigation, stating that the funds were for a property transaction. Despite the dismissal of the main accused's bail application, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's time spent in custody, the progress of the trial, and the need for diligent trial participation. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions and trial court directives.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the petitioner's bail application, directing his release under specified conditions and emphasizing active participation in the trial without interference. The petitioner was instructed to comply with all conditions imposed by the trial court and not involve himself in any other case. The judgment disposed of the petition accordingly.