2023 (10) TMI 1504 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Seeking grant of bail - organised crime - hatching a conspiracy by impersonating as Government Officers of the highest ranks - HELD THAT - The Apex Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra Anr. 2005 (4) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT inter-alia held that the role of the appellant was said to be of rendering help and support to the organizing crime syndicate while functioning as Commissioner of Police at different places. The Apex court was essentially concerned with the operation of Section 24 of MCOCA providing for punishment of public servant failing in discharge of their duty. However the court taking overall view of the matter with reference to the facts from the prima facie opinion that the High Court might not have been correct while coming to the conclusion that the appellant committed an offence under Section 3(2) as well as Section 24 of MCOC Act; the interim bail granted to the appellant was continued. In this case it was inter alia held There are offences and offences under the Penal Code 1860 and other penal statutes providing for punishment of three years or more and in relation to such offences more than one charge-sheet may be filed. As we have indicated herein before only because a person cheats or commits a criminal breach of trust more than once the same by itself may not be sufficient to attract the provisions of MCOCA. Furthermore mens rea is a necessary ingredient for commission of a crime under MCOCA. . It is a well settled proposition that these conditions are cumulative and not alternative. It was reiterated in Sandeep Omprakash Gupta 2022 (12) TMI 1103 - SUPREME COURT that the satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based on reasonable grounds and the expression reasonable grounds means something more than prime facie grounds. It was further inter alia held that it contemplates substantial provable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the present case as per the prosecution the evidence against the petitioner is that she was roped in by Sukesh Chandra Shekhar to facilitate him to get in touch with various bollywood celebrities and the petitioner was always in knowledge of the fact that Sukesh Chandra Shekhar is running organized crime syndicate in Tihar Jail - It is an admitted case that the petitioner was not directly involved in the foundational crime. However taking into account the fact that the mens rea is a necessary ingredient this court even at the stage of bail has to examine and evaluate whether the petitioner was a member of the organized crime syndicate or had required mens rea. It is pertinent to mention here that the act alleged to have been committed by the alleged accused should not only be prohibited by law but should also be a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more and must have been done singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such organized crime syndicate. The court is only required to evaluate and examine the case on the basis of broad probabilities. In regard to the offence to be committed in the future the antecedents of the offender have to be seen. It is a settled proposition that at the stage of bail the Court cannot meticulously examine the evidence and conduct a mini trial. The findings at this stage are tentative in nature and do not affect the merits of the case. The case at this stage has to be seen from the angle of prima-facie view. Even the rigors of section 21(4) of MCOCA does not completely oust the jurisdiction to grant bail if the broad probability is in favor of petitioner. In the present case there is nothing on the record regarding the criminal antecedents of the petitioner. It is also to be taken into account that the accused is a woman of 52 years of age and has been in custody since 30.11.2022. Conclusion - MCOCA is a special statute requiring strict interpretation and that the conditions for bail under Section 21(4) are cumulative and not alternative. Bail granted subject to specific conditions. Application allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The central issue considered was whether the applicant, Ms. Pinky Irani, should be granted bail under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in connection with her alleged involvement in an organized crime syndicate led by Sukesh Chandra Shekhar. The court examined whether the conditions for invoking MCOCA were met, including the applicant's alleged role in facilitating connections between the syndicate and Bollywood celebrities, and whether the evidence against her justified continued detention.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The legal framework primarily involved the MCOCA, specifically sections defining "continuing unlawful activity," "organized crime," and "organized crime syndicate." The court also considered precedents such as Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and State of Gujarat vs. Sandeep Omprakash Gupta, which elucidate the application of MCOCA and the conditions for bail under Section 21(4) of the Act.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The court emphasized that MCOCA is a special statute aimed at curbing organized crime, which poses a significant threat to society. The court highlighted that the provisions of MCOCA must be strictly construed, and the conditions for invoking the Act must be met, including the existence of a continuing unlawful activity, involvement in an organized crime syndicate, and the filing of more than one charge sheet within ten years.

Key Evidence and Findings

The prosecution alleged that Pinky Irani facilitated Sukesh Chandra Shekhar's interactions with Bollywood celebrities and was aware of his organized crime activities. Evidence included her alleged role as a conduit between Shekhar and celebrities, receipt of money in her bank account, and her involvement in arranging meetings and purchasing gifts. The prosecution also relied on her confessional statement under Section 18 of MCOCA.

Application of Law to Facts

The court assessed whether the applicant's actions constituted "continuing unlawful activity" and whether she had the requisite mens rea to be considered part of the organized crime syndicate. The court considered whether the acts alleged against her fell within the definition of organized crime under MCOCA and whether the conditions for bail under Section 21(4) were satisfied.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The applicant argued that her alleged facilitation of meetings was disjoint in time from the period of the offense and that mere knowledge of the syndicate's existence did not constitute participation. She also contended that the allegations mirrored those in a PMLA case where she was granted bail. The prosecution countered that her role as a facilitator and her knowledge of the syndicate's activities were sufficient to invoke MCOCA.

Conclusions

The court concluded that while the allegations against the applicant warranted trial, the evidence did not conclusively establish her as a member of the organized crime syndicate with the requisite mens rea. The court emphasized that at the bail stage, it need only consider the prima facie case and broad probabilities, not a detailed examination of the evidence.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The court held that the conditions for invoking MCOCA must be strictly construed, and the prosecution must demonstrate a prima facie case of organized crime involving the applicant. The court noted that the applicant's alleged actions, while serious, required further examination at trial to determine if they met the criteria for organized crime under MCOCA.

Core Principles Established

The court reiterated that MCOCA is a special statute requiring strict interpretation and that the conditions for bail under Section 21(4) are cumulative and not alternative. The court also emphasized the importance of mens rea in determining involvement in organized crime.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

The court granted bail to the applicant, subject to specific conditions, considering her age, lack of criminal antecedents, and the prima facie nature of the evidence. The court's decision was based on a balanced consideration of the allegations, the applicant's role, and the legal standards for bail under MCOCA.