9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 189 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Regular Bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime out of illegal gratification in lieu of giving favours to the bidders by leasing out the Waqf properties to them - predicate offence - twin conditions of Section 45 (1) of PMLA satisfied or not - HELD THAT - While the conclusive evidentiary value of the statements under Section 50 PMLA will be determined at the end of the trial, the Courts can rely on the statements under Section 50 of PMLA and other material collected by the prosecution to determine if a prima facie case is made out for the purpose of granting bail - At this stage, the only evidence available includes the statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA and other corroborating material, such as electronic evidence, money transactions, or documentary evidence. This evidence is crucial for the Court to assess a person s involvement in an offence under PMLA. Therefore, this Court finds that the argument that statements under Section 50 of PMLA cannot be considered at the stage of bail is without merit. The material evidence gathered during the course of the investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement reveals that Amanatullah Khan had hatched a criminal conspiracy along with his close associates i.e., the present applicants/accuseds and others and pursuant to the same, he had invested his ill-gotten money i.e. proceeds of crime, in the immovable properties through his associates namely Zeeshan Haider, Daud Nasir and others. As alleged, Amanatullah Khan had purchased immovable properties in the name of benamidars i.e. the present applicants Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir, by concealing and suppressing their actual value which is very nominal in comparison to their actual sale value and actively concealed amounts that were paid in cash to the seller, which are the proceeds of crime acquired by Amanatullah Khan out of his corrupt and illegal activities relating to the offences scheduled under PMLA. This Court further upon careful consideration of the submissions and documents presented by Sh. Zoheb Hossain learned Special Counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement, notes that the interim bail granted to applicant Daud Nasir on 10.05.2024, was primarily for the purpose of taking care of his wife during her scheduled surgery on 17.05.2024 at Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. It has been argued that this surgery was not conducted as scheduled. This Court has gone through the email dated 28.05.2024 sent by Fortis Hospital to the Directorate of Enforcement which reveals that the applicant s wife neither submitted the prescribed medical reports to the doctors nor went to the hospital for admission or surgery on the scheduled date - This Court is of the opinion that the applicant/accused Daud Nasir has misled the Court by misrepresenting the need for interim bail, which was granted based on the necessity of a major surgery at Fortis Hospital. Thus, the conduct of the applicant Daud Nasir is doubtful and this Court is of the opinion if the applicant Daud Nasir if released on bail, may misuse the liberty and may attempt to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The material brought before this Court at this stage is sufficient to attract bar under Section 45 of PMLA on both the applicants. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of regular bail to the present applicants i.e., Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir. Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of PMLA. 2. Allegations of money laundering against the applicants. 3. Validity of evidence, including statements under Section 50 of PMLA and diary entries. 4. Compliance with the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for granting bail. 5. Allegations of misleading the court by the applicant Daud Nasir. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Regular Bail: The judgment addresses applications filed by Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of PMLA, seeking regular bail in a case involving ECIR No. ECIR/DLZO-I/35/2022 for offences under Sections 3/4 of PMLA. 2. Allegations of Money Laundering: The Directorate of Enforcement alleged that Amanatullah Khan, in conspiracy with the applicants and others, laundered proceeds of crime by utilizing illegal gratification to purchase properties. Specifically, properties at Plot Nos. 275 and 276, Tikona Park, Jamia Nagar, Delhi, were purchased using approximately Rs. 36 crores, with Rs. 27 crores paid in cash and Rs. 9 crores through bank transactions. The applicants allegedly acted as benamidars for Amanatullah Khan. 3. Validity of Evidence: The prosecution relied on statements under Section 50 of PMLA and a white diary seized from co-accused Kausar Imam Siddiqui, which documented significant cash transactions. The court noted that the statements under Section 50 of PMLA are admissible and can be considered for forming a prima facie view. The diary entries were corroborated by bank statements and other material evidence, indicating that the sale consideration for the properties was Rs. 36 crores, not Rs. 13.4 crores as claimed by the accused. 4. Compliance with Twin Conditions under Section 45 of PMLA: The court emphasized the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, which require that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India and Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate, which underscore the importance of these conditions. The court found that the material evidence, including the statements under Section 50 of PMLA and the corroborating documents, was sufficient to attract the bar under Section 45 of PMLA. 5. Allegations of Misleading the Court: The court noted that Daud Nasir had misled the court regarding the grounds for interim bail. The interim bail was granted for his wife's surgery, which was initially scheduled at Fortis Hospital but was later performed as a minor surgery at a different hospital. This change was not disclosed to the court, raising doubts about the applicant's conduct and the possibility of misuse of bail. Conclusion: The court concluded that the material brought before it was sufficient to attract the bar under Section 45 of PMLA. Therefore, the applications for regular bail by Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir were dismissed. The court clarified that the observations made were solely for adjudicating the bail applications and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
|
