9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 1449 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - predicate offence - applicability of provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA - HELD THAT - It is true that in some cases the Hon ble Supreme Court has granted bail despite the provisions of Section 45 of the 2002 Act or Section 37 of the NDPS Act 1985 in order to do complete justice but such extraordinary jurisdiction is vested only with the Hon ble Supreme Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India. A similar point in this regard was raised by a Division Bench of this Court in Daulat Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2014 (4) TMI 1333 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT wherein the Hon ble Division Bench has held that such an order can be passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court under the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India but such jurisdiction or powers are not available to the High Court or the trial Court. In the present case it has not been revealed that the amount received by the accused is not tainted money or he is not aware of the proceeds of crime and he is innocent. The defences taken by the accused can be a subject of consideration. The accused or the companies controlled by him have received a total of Rs 85.12 crores through Bharat Bamb etc. These companies controlled by the accused/applicant have also been fake and disputed Rs 58.72 crores is still outstanding against the accused/applicant - the conditions mentioned in Section 45 of the Act 2002 are not being satisfied in this case. There is also no situation that the accused has undergone half the period of maximum imprisonment prescribed for the alleged crime in custody hence the provisions of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure are also not applicable in this case. One of the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused has also been that the other co-accused have been granted bail by the trial court itself but on this point the Hon ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Tarun Kumar vs Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate 2023 (11) TMI 904 - SUPREME COURT that the principle of equality is not in the form of law and it is not proper to ignore the legal provisions on that basis alone. It is also worth mentioning here that the learned A.S.G. has submitted that it has been decided to challenge the bail granted to the co-accused in the higher court to get it cancelled. Conclusion - The bail application is dismissed as the court found no grounds to believe that the accused was not guilty or that the conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were met. Bail application dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Eligibility for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The accused filed a bail application under Section 439, claiming innocence and arguing that the money received was not tainted. The defense argued that the accused was not aware that the funds were proceeds of crime and had been cheated by others. The prosecution countered that the funds were indeed proceeds of crime and that the accused had knowingly engaged in money laundering activities. 2. Application of Section 45 of the PMLA: Section 45 of the PMLA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The prosecution argued that these conditions were not met, while the defense cited precedents where higher courts had granted bail despite these provisions, emphasizing the court's discretion. 3. Legality of Arrest and Detention: The defense challenged the legality of the arrest, arguing that cognizance had not been taken at the time of arrest and that the arrest was made without the necessary permissions. The court noted that under Section 19 of the PMLA, an arrest can be made if there is material to believe that an offense has been committed, and the absence of cognizance does not invalidate the arrest. 4. Involvement in Money Laundering and Acquisition of Tainted Assets: The court examined the evidence, including financial transactions and the acquisition of properties, which suggested involvement in money laundering. The defense's argument that the transactions were legitimate was considered a matter for trial, not bail. The prosecution highlighted the accused's role in receiving and utilizing tainted funds. 5. Criminal Record and Principle of Equality: The accused's criminal record, including multiple cases of serious offenses, was considered relevant in the bail decision. The court also addressed the argument of equality, noting that bail granted to co-accused does not automatically entitle the accused to bail, especially when legal provisions are not satisfied. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The court held that the conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied, as there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused was not guilty. The accused's defenses were deemed matters for trial rather than bail. The court emphasized that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to grant bail despite statutory restrictions, is not available to the High Court. Core Principles Established:
Final Determinations:
|
