9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1118 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - bribery - proceeds of crime acquired in the form of commission/bribe in lieu of allotment of tenders by the accused Veerendra Kumar Ram, a public servant - fulfilment of parameter fixed u/s45 (ii) of the PMLA - HELD THAT - It prima-facie appears that the petitioner knowingly assisted to her husband who is co-accused to purchase immovable properties at New Delhi in her name and the purchase consideration was paid from the proceeds of crime generated by her husband Veerendra Kumar Ram. The petitioner knowingly tried to directly conceal the proceeds of crime acquired by her husband and claimed it to be untainted in the guise of taking entries in her bank accounts from the companies providing entries by charging commission. The materials on record reflects that bank account statements of the petitioner, there are huge credits from M/s RP Investment and Consultancy, Manoj Kumar Singh and M/s RK Investment Consultancy - There are materials against the present petitioner regarding her specific role in the offence of the prosecution complaint that she committed the offence of money laundering with respect to the proceeds of crime. It appears that the petitioner knowingly assisted his son who is co-accused to purchase immovable properties at New Delhi in his own name to the tune of Rs 22.5 Crore from the commission/bribe amount, which was acquired by his son Veerendra Kumar Ram. Further, the bank account statements of the petitioner reflect huge credits to the tune of Rs 4.525 crores. There are materials against the petitioner regarding his specific role in the offence which is mentioned in Para-11.4 of the prosecution complaint that he committed the offence of money laundering with respect to the proceeds of crime. It has been settled by Hon ble Apex Court time and again in its various pronouncements that the powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is of extra-ordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only and therefore, the anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime, as grant of anticipatory bail to some extent, is interference in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be cautious while exercising such powers - It is also settled connotation of law that the grant or refusal of the application should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstance of each case and there is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principles governing such exercise by the Court. In SUSHILA AGGARWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER 2020 (1) TMI 1193 - SUPREME COURT the Constitution Bench of the Hon ble Apex Court has reiterated that while deciding applications for anticipatory bail, Courts should be guided by factors like the nature and gravity of the offences and the role attributed to the applicant and the facts of the case - The Hon ble Supreme Court, in catena of decisions, has categorically held that the judicial discretion of the Court while considering the anticipatory bail shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, it is evident by taking into consideration the provision of Section 19 (1), 45 (1), 45 (2), the conditions which is required to be considered while granting the benefit of bail in exercise of power conferred under Section 438 or 439 of Cr.P.C., apart from the twin conditions which has been provided under Section 45 (1) of the Act, 2002, the conditions or the requirement which has been followed while granting the bail under Section 439 or 438, as the case may be, is required to be considered. Now coming to the facts of instant case, this Court, based upon the imputations as referred in preceding paragraphs which has been discovered in course of investigation, is of prima-facie view that what has been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that proceeds cannot be said to be proceeds of crime but as would appear from the imputations , money which has been obtained by the accused person Veerendra Kumar Ram has been obtained in the form of the commission and same was utilized and concealed by the petitioners despite knowing that it is the proceeds of crime. In the instant case, there is sufficient evidence collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate to prima facie come to the conclusion that the petitioners were actively involved in the offence of Money Laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA. As against that there is nothing on record to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the petitioners are not guilty of the said offence and the special benefit as contemplated in the proviso to Section 45 should be granted to the petitioners who are the lady and sick person respectively - on the basis of aforesaid discussion the Court does not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. This Court, in view of the aforesaid material available against the petitioners, is of the view that in such a grave nature of offence, which is available on the face of the material, applying the principle of grant of anticipatory bail wherein the principle of having prima facie case is to be followed, this Court is of the view that the nature of allegation since is grave and as such, it is not a fit case of grant of anticipatory bail. This Court is of the view that the instant applications are fit to be dismissed and as such, stand dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Allegations under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 3. Role and involvement of the petitioners in money laundering. 4. Application of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA. 5. Consideration of the proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA for women and sick persons. 6. Judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail. Detailed Analysis: 1. Pre-arrest Bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in connection with ECIR Case No. 2 of 2023, registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. They argued that they were falsely implicated and that the allegations did not attract the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the offence and the involvement of the petitioners in money laundering. 2. Allegations under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA The investigation revealed that the petitioners were involved in laundering money obtained through bribes and commissions by the co-accused Veerendra Kumar Ram. The proceeds of crime were routed through various bank accounts and used to purchase immovable properties. The prosecution submitted that the petitioners were directly involved in the concealment, possession, and use of the proceeds of crime, thus committing the offence of money laundering. 3. Role and Involvement of the Petitioners The prosecution complaint detailed the involvement of the petitioners: - Rajkumari: Allegedly assisted her husband in purchasing properties in her name using proceeds of crime. She had significant credits in her bank accounts, which were linked to the commission received by her husband. - Genda Ram: Allegedly assisted his son in purchasing properties in his name using proceeds of crime. His bank account reflected huge credits linked to the commission received by his son. 4. Application of Twin Conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA The court emphasized that the conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA are mandatory. The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Tarun Kumar, which reiterated the necessity of complying with these conditions. 5. Consideration of Proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA The petitioners argued that the twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA are not applicable to Rajkumari (a woman) and Genda Ram (a sick person). The court noted that the proviso to Section 45(1) uses the term "may be released on bail," indicating judicial discretion rather than a mandatory provision. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in Enforcement Directorate v. Preeti Chandra and Saumya Chaurasia, which clarified that the benefit of the proviso is discretionary and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 6. Judicial Discretion in Granting Anticipatory Bail The court underscored that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The court must balance the liberty of the individual with the need for a fair and free investigation. The court cited Siddharam Satlinappa Mhetre and Sushila Aggarwal to highlight the factors to be considered, such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role of the accused, and the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice. Conclusion: The court dismissed the applications for pre-arrest bail, finding sufficient evidence of the petitioners' involvement in money laundering. The court held that the nature of the allegations was grave and did not warrant the grant of anticipatory bail. The findings were restricted to the purpose of the bail application and would not influence the trial court.
|
