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 1074 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - present application is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. mainly on the ground that all the documents related to the crime have already been seized and ECIR has been filed before the Competent Court which is pending for adjudication - HELD THAT - The applicant said to have purchased the plots from Keshav Nachani who has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide M.Cr.C. No.51485 of 2023. So far as the role of this applicant is concerned, he only assisted Dipak Jain in the crime. Deepak Jain transferred the property in the name of this applicant. The arrest is not required for custody/ interrogation as investigation is over now. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that at the time of filing of ECIR, the arrest of this applicant was not demanded by the prosecution agency hence, bailable warrant was issued for his appearance by the Special Judge. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant - Ashok Pipada shall be released upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of sub-Section (2) of section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant shall also co- operate with the investigation - Application allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the applicant apprehending arrest in connection with offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the rejection of bail applications in previous cases, the nature of economic offences under the PMLA Act, and the role of the applicant in assisting in money laundering activities. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant filed an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. apprehending arrest in connection with offences under the PMLA Act. The applicant highlighted that all relevant documents related to the crime had already been seized, and the ECIR was pending adjudication. The applicant had been called for statements but was never arrested by the respondent. Issue 2: Bail Application Rejection The applicant, represented by counsel Arjun Garg, argued for anticipatory bail, citing cooperation in the investigation and the absence of arrest demands during the charge-sheet filing. The respondent opposed the bail application, stating that economic offences are heinous and should be treated differently, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence under the PMLA Act. Issue 3: Role of the Applicant in Money Laundering The ECIR described the applicant's role in assisting in money laundering activities, transferring properties to avoid seizure by law enforcement agencies. The respondent argued that the applicant knowingly assisted in money laundering activities, constituting offences under the PMLA Act. Issue 4: Legal Precedents and Arguments Legal precedents were cited by both parties, emphasizing the discretion of the court in granting anticipatory bail, the seriousness of economic offences, and the factors to be considered in bail applications. The court considered the prima facie case against the accused, the nature of the offence, and the severity of the punishment. Final Decision: The court allowed the application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., directing that the applicant shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond and surety. The applicant was instructed to cooperate with the investigation. The court emphasized the seriousness of economic offences and the need for a serious approach in bail matters concerning such offences. This judgment highlights the complexities involved in granting anticipatory bail in cases of economic offences under the PMLA Act, emphasizing the seriousness of such offences and the factors to be considered by the court in such matters.
|