2024 (1) TMI 88 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - Money Laundering - misappropriation of the credit facilities extended to the Companies and siphoning them off for personal gains causing loss - HELD THAT - Section 309 of Cr.P.C., does not indicate anywhere that remand cannot be extended unless reasons are recorded. If it is the case of the petitioner that he is in custody for an indefinite period as the trial is not proceeding on a day-to-day basis, his rights can certainly be protected to ensure speedy trial. That may also be a ground for seeking regular bail. However, it is added that the Court considering the bail application, of course, would consider all other factors including the magnitude of the economic offences committed by the petitioner. But, it is far-fetched to say that extending the remand must contain reasons every time the trial is postponed for hearing. The violation of the rights, has to be adjudicated only in a bail application which is subject to twin conditions mentioned in Section 45 of PMLA. Therefore, the orders passed by the Trial Court are in accordance with law and there is no reason to interfere with the same - application dismissed. Whether the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail on the ground that the respondent has not completed the investigation? - HELD THAT - Given the specific stand taken by the respondent, that the complaint and the materials filed disclose the offences and that they would proceed with the trial on that basis, it cannot be held that the investigation is incomplete and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail. The respondent had already identified a portion of the proceeds of crime which is sufficient to prove the charge against the petitioner herein. The further investigation is conducted qua the remaining proceeds of crime. In the judgment of the Delhi High Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Chitra Ramakrishna 2022 (10) TMI 49 - DELHI HIGH COURT , the Court was dealing with the Final Report filed by the CBI for the offence under Section 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act - In that case, the Delhi High Court found that the Final Report was incomplete and it was filed only to deny statutory bail to the petitioner therein. As stated earlier, an incomplete Final Report is different from a Final Report which states that further investigation is necessary to identify more proceeds of crime. In the present case, the complaints filed by the respondents are not incomplete and the trial can be proceeded with independent of further investigation - the observations made in the judgment of the Delhi High Court, would not apply to the facts of the instant case. There are no merit in the three Criminal Revision cases and they are liable to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Extension of remand under Section 309 of Cr.P.C.
2. Entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
3. Request for house arrest to access documents.

Summary:

Extension of Remand under Section 309 of Cr.P.C.
The petitioner challenged the orders extending his remand, arguing that under Section 309 of Cr.P.C., remand cannot be extended without recording reasons, violating his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court found this argument contrary to the plain language of Section 309, which deals with the power to postpone or adjourn proceedings to ensure a speedy trial. The court concluded that remand extensions do not require reasons every time the trial is postponed and upheld the trial court's orders as lawful.

Entitlement to Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
The petitioner argued that he is entitled to statutory bail since the respondent admitted that the investigation is ongoing. The court differentiated between an incomplete investigation and a completed investigation with ongoing further investigation. It held that the complaints filed were not based on an incomplete investigation; hence, the petitioner is not entitled to statutory bail. The court found no merit in the petitioner's reliance on the Delhi High Court judgment in Chitra Ramakrishna's case, as it dealt with an incomplete Final Report.

Request for House Arrest to Access Documents
The petitioner requested house arrest to access voluminous documents for his defense. The court denied this request, stating that no extraordinary circumstances were shown to warrant house arrest. However, the court directed the respondent to ensure that all documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to the petitioner and accessible even if he is in prison.

Conclusion:
All Criminal Revision Cases (Crl.RC.Nos.890, 975, 976, 1026, 1029, and 1030/2023) were dismissed. The court directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within six months, recognizing the petitioner's constitutional right to a speedy trial.