2024 (5) TMI 788 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Grant of bail - presumption of innocence and its appreciation in respect of the offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and its overriding effect over Section 45 of PMLA - HELD THAT - In this Case amount transpired in course of investigation initially is recovering of the seized cash amount and the same was at the behest of a complaint lodged by a nationalised bank in respect of transactions/debit credit taking place in some of the accounts and the same being routed through another nationalised bank. The holder of the main five companies were found to have a single address which was rented for two months and so far as shell-companies are concerned which were from Jamshedpur Jharkhand mainly in those case on scrutiny of the records which were furnished for opening the accounts the same were found to be fake or non-existent. Going by the allegations against the present petitioner in the complaint the petitioner was applying his mind knowledge and conscience for routing out the money which was illegally acquired by Tushar Patil Prasenjit Das Viraj Suhas Patil. The role of the petitioner was for concealment and projecting proceeds of crime as untainted money. Delay and long detention in custody have never been accepted by the constitutional courts and wherever there has been unreasonable delay the Courts have favoured the constitutional mandate of liberty. However there are cases where the statute is built in such a manner that the complicity simpliciter is not a criteria but the detention is on the basis of guilt and the present case is one of such nature. It is a fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than 14 months but the nature of the offence complained of requires time for investigation as the procedure adopted in concealment and its unearthing both are time consuming. It has been submitted by the Enforcement Directorate that not only investigation is continuing but immovable assets which have been the outcome of such proceeds of crime are being traced to countries or abroad and for which time is being consumed. Having regard to the fact that although complaint has been filed in this case but yet further investigation is at a crucial stage the petitioner cannot be released on bail only on the ground of delay having regard to the fact that he has not been able to overcome the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA 2002. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

Issues Involved:
1. Bail Application
2. Genesis of the Case
3. Allegations and Investigation
4. Legal Arguments and Precedents
5. Twin Conditions under Section 45 of PMLA
6. Delay and Right to Speedy Trial

Summary:

1. Bail Application:
The petitioner sought bail in connection with M.L. Case No. 01/2023, pending before the Special Judge, CBI Court No. 1, citing over 14 months of custody without progress in the trial.

2. Genesis of the Case:
The case originated from a complaint by the Regional Manager of Canara Bank, Kolkata, regarding suspicious transactions in accounts of M/s. T.M. Traders and M/s. K.K. Traders. The bank detected that the parties were from Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, and the addresses provided were fake.

3. Allegations and Investigation:
The entire credits were effected through UPI, NEFT, and RTGS transactions, transferred to multiple accounts. The National Payment Corporation of India alerted Canara Bank about unauthorized forex funding. A criminal case was initiated, and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) began their investigation, revealing transactions involving Rs. 77 crore. The petitioner was accused of assisting in opening dummy firm accounts, maintaining accountancy, and receiving commissions from scam money.

4. Legal Arguments and Precedents:
The petitioner's counsel argued on the principles of bail, emphasizing Article 21 of the Constitution, the presumption of innocence, and cited various judgments, including P. Chidambaram vs. Enforcement Directorate and Manish Sisodia vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, highlighting that bail can be granted even in economic offences if the trial is delayed.

5. Twin Conditions under Section 45 of PMLA:
The court discussed the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, which require the accused to prove prima facie that they are not guilty and are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court referred to judgments like Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, and Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, emphasizing the gravity of economic offences and the stringent conditions for bail.

6. Delay and Right to Speedy Trial:
The petitioner argued for bail based on prolonged incarceration and delay in trial. The court acknowledged the constitutional mandate of liberty and right to a speedy trial but noted that the nature of the offence required time for investigation. The court referred to Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and judgments like Manish Sisodia vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, emphasizing that delay alone is not sufficient to grant bail in cases involving economic offences.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the bail application, noting that the petitioner did not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA and that the investigation was still ongoing. The application for bail (CRM (SB) 206 of 2023) was dismissed, and all pending connected applications were disposed of.

← Previous Next →