Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2024 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 89 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of regular bail - bail sought on medical grounds - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - acquisition of three immovable properties by the petitioner - HELD THAT - This Court is not persuaded to consider the prayer for bail on the Medical grounds for two reasons Firstly, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner did not press this point at the time of arguments though the same has been averred in some detail in the application and briefly in the written submissions filed by the petitioner; and secondly, the PMLA does not provide for Bail, as a matter of right, solely on health grounds. As such, the prayer for Bail on medical grounds is not being considered. In absence of any cogent material that the petitioner despite knowledge that a forged sale deed is involved in the claim supporting the title of the property situated at Chesire Home Road had purchased the same as a part of a larger conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime and that the petitioner had no role in the creation of the false document, this Court is satisfied that there are reasons to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of an offence punishable under the PMLA. It needs to be iterated that materials on record do not establish, even prima facie, that the petitioner had the intention to commit an offence punishable under the PMLA. Likewise in view of the fact that with respect to lands situated at Mouza Pugru and Siram no scheduled offence has been reportedly committed and the criminal law has not been set in motion, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT no offence punishable under section 4 PMLA can be said to have to committed by the petitioner. Viewed thus, it can be held without any hesitance that the allegations qua the land situated at Pugru and Siram prima facie do not make out an offence of money laundering and thus this Court is satisfied that there are reasons to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of an offence punishable under the PMLA. The petitioner is in custody from 31.07.2023. The trial is yet to commence. There are 34 witnesses and more than 6000 of documentary evidence. The scheduled offence in respect of Chesire Home Road property is still at the stage of investigation; whereas in respect of the other two properties no FIR / Complaint alleging commission of schedule offence has been registered till date. Prolonged detention will not serve any purpose. No material has been brought to the attention of this Court that the petitioner will hamper the trial in any manner and why his custody is important for the disposal of the trial. Another aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the prosecution pertains to sale and purchase of a piece of land measuring one acre and the accusations do not pertain to wrong aimed to harm the public at large or defraud the government exchequer. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of regular bail under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 2. Allegations related to acquisition of three immovable properties. 3. Compliance with Section 19(1) of the PMLA Act. 4. Hardships faced by the petitioner while in judicial custody. 5. Examination of twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA Act. Summary: 1. Grant of Regular Bail under PMLA: The petitioner sought regular bail for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The petitioner cooperated with the investigation and was arrested on 31.07.2023. The petitioner argued that despite cooperating, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) did not provide written grounds for arrest, violating Section 19(1) of the PMLA Act. The petitioner emphasized that he is not a flight risk, has not tampered with evidence, and his participation in the trial is secured. 2. Allegations Related to Acquisition of Three Properties: The allegations pertain to three properties: Cheshire Home Road Land, Siram Mauza Land, and Pugru Mauza Land. The petitioner argued that he purchased these lands through legal means and was unaware of any forgery involved. For Cheshire Home Road Land, it was contended that the petitioner was a bonafide purchaser and had no role in creating forged documents. For Siram Mauza and Pugru Mauza lands, it was argued that no scheduled offence was reported, and the petitioner purchased the properties legally. 3. Compliance with Section 19(1) of PMLA Act: The court observed that the petitioner's argument regarding non-compliance with Section 19(1) of the PMLA Act was not pressed during arguments and was not considered for granting bail. The court referred to the recent decision in Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1082, which is applicable to the present case. 4. Hardships Faced by Petitioner in Judicial Custody: The petitioner highlighted financial hardships and medical conditions while in custody. However, the court did not consider bail on medical grounds, noting that the ailments were not life-threatening and did not justify bail solely on health grounds. 5. Examination of Twin Conditions under Section 45 of PMLA Act: The court examined whether the petitioner met the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA Act, which requires reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. The court found that there was no material indicating the petitioner's involvement in creating forged documents or knowledge of such forgery. The court also noted that no scheduled offence was reported for the other two properties, and the continuation of proceedings without a predicate offence would cause a miscarriage of justice. Conclusion: The court directed the petitioner to be released on bail with conditions, including surrendering his passport, not tampering with evidence, and appearing before the trial court on each date. The findings were tentative and would not affect the merits of the case during the trial.
|