2024 (4) TMI 1189 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail - extending protection and patronage to illegal cattle smuggling to Bangladesh through India Bangladesh Border - co-accused is granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court - HELD THAT - The applicant has been in custody since 09.06.2022. The main accused, that is, Satish Kumar and Md. Enamul Haque, have already been released on bail by orders passed by the Special Judge and the Supreme Court, respectively. Sekh Abdul Latif has also been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 12.09.2023. The applicant has been charged under Sections 109/120B/420 of the IPC and Sections 7/9/11/12/13 of the PC Act. The allegations against the applicant in the charge-sheet have also been perused. As stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, there are 189 witnesses, and the trial is not likely to conclude any time soon. In the present case, there is no apprehension expressed by the respondent that there is any chance of the applicant fleeing from the process of law. As far as the submission that the applicant may influence the witnesses, as noted hereinabove, the main accused have already been released on bail. In any case, if the prosecution later finds that the applicant is misusing the liberty granted to him, it would always be open to the prosecution to move an appropriate application to seek the cancellation of bail. It is directed that the Applicant be released on Bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Allegations of involvement in illegal activities under IPC and PC Act.
3. Comparison with bail granted to other accused.
4. Gravity of charges and potential impact on witnesses.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., seeking release in a case registered under IPC and PC Act. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, a Personal Security Officer, was involved in illegal gratification collection for protecting illegal business activities like cattle smuggling. The applicant's counsel argued for bail based on the prolonged custody and ongoing trial status.

Issue 2: The prosecution accused the applicant of criminal conspiracy, obtaining undue advantage, and amassing illegal wealth through patronage for illegal activities. The charges included Sections 109/120B/420 of the IPC and Sections 7/9/11/12/13 of the PC Act. The applicant's alleged involvement in influencing local persons for smuggling activities was a key point of contention.

Issue 3: The applicant's counsel highlighted that other main accused individuals had been granted bail, including Md. Enamul Haque and Satish Kumar. The comparison with the bail granted to these individuals was used to support the argument for the applicant's bail. Additionally, another co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court.

Issue 4: The prosecution argued against bail, citing the seriousness of the charges and the alleged threat posed by the applicant to witnesses. The prosecution contended that the applicant, along with other accused, had intimidated villagers and public officers to support illegal activities. The prosecutor also mentioned ongoing threats to witnesses and missing witnesses as factors against granting bail.

In the judgment, the court considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding bail applications. The court noted the seriousness of the charges, the number of witnesses, and the status of the trial. Ultimately, the court found that the applicant had made a case for bail, especially considering the bail granted to other accused individuals and the absence of specific apprehensions regarding the applicant's potential to flee or influence witnesses. The court granted bail to the applicant on certain conditions to ensure compliance and directed the applicant to furnish a personal bond.