2024 (3) TMI 597 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of anticipatory bail - Money Laundering - siphoning off of funds - sale of the properties belonging to Kalpataru Grih Nirman Society, in which, FIR has been registered against Dilip Sisodia for defrauding the society by diverting Rs. 4.89 Crores in his own personal account - HELD THAT - Section 3 of the PMLA Act says that whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. Therefore, the allegation in the ECIR against the applicant that he was involved in the process or activity connected with the proceed for crime and its concealment. Therefore, even if, as on today, he is not an accused in the FIR will not be a ground for anticipatory bail in view of rigor of Section 45 of the PMLA Act. At this stage, this Court cannot held that the applicant is not guilty of the offence under the PMLA Act. In the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy 2013 (5) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT the apex Court has held While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. Even otherwise, the warrant has been issued by the Court but the present applicant is not appearing before the Court, therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. The applicant may surrender and apply for regular bail - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Summary:

Issue 1: Anticipatory Bail Application under PMLA Act
The applicant filed an application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. apprehending arrest in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The applicant was accused of diverting funds from a society and was alleged to have been involved in the process of money laundering.

Issue 2: Applicant's Defense
The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was not directly involved in the transactions related to the society in question and cited legal precedents to support the contention that the applicant should not be accused under the PMLA Act. It was emphasized that the applicant cooperated during the investigation, was not arrested, and was a taxpayer, thus warranting anticipatory bail.

Issue 3: Prosecution's Opposition
The respondent's counsel opposed the anticipatory bail plea, stating that the applicant was the manager of the society where funds were diverted and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding certain transactions. It was argued that money laundering is a serious offense affecting the financial health of the country, and the applicant's non-appearance despite a court-issued warrant disentitled him from anticipatory bail.

Judgment
The court held that the applicant's involvement in the process of money laundering, as alleged in the case, was sufficient to deny anticipatory bail under the stringent provisions of the PMLA Act. Legal principles emphasizing the seriousness of economic offenses and the need for a different approach to bail in such cases were cited. Additionally, the court noted the non-appearance of the applicant despite a court-issued warrant, leading to the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application. The applicant was directed to surrender and apply for regular bail instead.