9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 3 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of anticipatory bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offences - Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA in anticipatory bail - Legality of present ECIR. Anticipatory bail - Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA in anticipatory bail - HELD THAT - This Court has considered the submissions of both the parties and observes that apart from having considered the judgment of the Division Bench, this Court has independently considered the material against the petitioner as well as the arguments of the petitioner and finds that even dehors the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, it is not possible for this Court to opine that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail and rather, as has been observed hereinabove, there is sufficient material to make out a prime facie case against the petitioner. The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary s case 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT had observed that it would not be logical to disregard the limitations imposed on granting bail under Section 45 of the 2002 Act, in the case of anticipatory bail as well. In the said judgment, reference was also made to the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT , in which, it has been observed that the power under Section 438 Cr.PC. has to be exercised sparingly, more so, in case of economic offences as economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society and in a case of money-laundering where it involves many stages, it requires systematic and analysed investigation and the success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by a pre-arrest bail order. It would also be relevant to note that in para 401 of the said judgment, the Hon ble Supreme had observed that the Court need not go deep into the merits of the case and is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during investigation and the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt - the rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 Act would also apply to an anticipatory bail and this Court after having considered the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the above-said judgment is of the opinion that the petitioner in the present case does not meet the twin test as contained in Section 45 of the PMLA to be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. Legality of present ECIR - HELD THAT - It would be relevant to note that in the present case, the complaint on the basis of which FIRs No. 10 and 11 were registered after the matter had been remanded twice in the proceedings under Section 156 (3) was withdrawn on 09.02.2024 and during the interregnum period, the above said four FIRs with respect to the illegalities committed by the petitioner and the Mahira Group of companies and its Directors etc. were registered and were taken on record of the present ECIR thus, legitimising the existence of the present ECIR. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur s case 2023 (12) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT has observed that it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged, must have been shown as an accused in the scheduled offence and thus, a person who is not an accused in the predicate offence can also be tried under the PMLA. The said proposition of law has been exemplified by the Hon ble Supreme Court by observing that in case the offence under Sections 384 to 389 IPC, relating to extortion, which is a scheduled offence, is committed, then, a person who has committed the crime of extortion would be accused in the FIR registered under Sections 384 to 389 IPC, but the person who is unconnected with the offence of extortion but has assisted the said accused in the concealment of the proceeds of extortion could be held guilty of the offence of money laundering. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of ECIR after the quashing of FIR No. 11. 2. Petitioner's cooperation with the investigation. 3. Petitioner's connection to the alleged illegalities. 4. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to anticipatory bail. Summary: 1. Validity of ECIR after the quashing of FIR No. 11: The petitioner argued that once FIR No. 11, which led to the registration of ECIR, was quashed, the ECIR should also be quashed. However, the court noted that four other FIRs were registered and taken on record by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) for comprehensive investigation. These FIRs pertained to various offenses including forgery, cheating, and submission of fake bank guarantees. The court referred to the Delhi High Court judgment in "Rajinder Singh Chadha vs. Union of India" which held that the registration of subsequent FIRs legitimizes the existence of the ECIR. Thus, the ECIR was not quashed. 2. Petitioner's cooperation with the investigation: The petitioner claimed full cooperation with the investigation, highlighting multiple appearances before the ED. However, the court noted that the petitioner did not comply with several summons issued by the ED and was evasive during the investigation. This non-cooperation led to the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. 3. Petitioner's connection to the alleged illegalities: The court found substantial evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offenses. The petitioner was a director in several companies of the Mahira Group, which were involved in various illegal activities including siphoning off funds collected from home buyers. The investigation revealed that the petitioner received significant amounts from these companies, which were proceeds of crime. The court also noted that the petitioner was actively involved in money laundering through bogus purchases and personal expenditures booked in the company accounts. 4. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to anticipatory bail: The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in "Vijay Madanlal Choudhary" which held that the limitations imposed on granting bail under Section 45 of PMLA also apply to anticipatory bail. The court found that the petitioner did not meet the twin conditions of Section 45, which require the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offense and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. Conclusion: The court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition, holding that there was sufficient material to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The observations made in the order were for the purpose of adjudicating the anticipatory bail and should not be considered as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The trial court was directed to proceed independently in accordance with the law. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.
|
