2024 (8) TMI 1410 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of regular bail - third bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Money laundering - scheduled offences - illegal extortion on Coal Transportation - applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 - offence punishable under Sections 3 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - From bare perusal of ECIR as well as observation made by Hon ble the Supreme Court in case of the present applicant wherein Hon ble the Supreme Court while rejecting the bail of the applicant has recorded its finding that there is sufficient evidence collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate to prima facie come to the conclusion that the applicant who was Deputy Secretary and OSD in the Office of the Chief Minister, was actively involved in the offence of Money Laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. As against that there is nothing on record to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the applicant is not guilty of the said offence and the special benefit as contemplated in the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 should be granted to the applicant who is a lady. The order-sheet of the case would demonstrate that the trial could not be proceeded on the count that other accused are not available or various applications were filed by different accused to delay the trial. The order-sheet further reflects that despite the directions issued by the trial Court seeking presence of the accused, the accused have not appeared before the trial Court causing delay in trial, therefore, various steps have been initiated for seeking their presence - the other accused are not seeking their presence before the trial Court, therefore, the trial has not begun, as such it cannot be said that the trial is being delayed without any rhyme and reason. Therefore, the submission made by learned senior counsel for the applicant that there is delay in trial, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released in bail, deserves to be rejected. In the present case, considering that the applicant has remained only 1 year 8 months, the accused are not cooperating with the trial and the applicant has not fulfilled the twin conditions for grant of bail under the PMLA, 2002 - the third bail application filed by the present applicant also deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected - Application dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Third bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Allegations under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
3. Involvement in illegal extortion and money laundering syndicate.
4. Previous bail applications and their outcomes.
5. Arguments for and against granting bail.
6. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002.
7. Delay in trial proceedings.
8. Role and influence of the applicant in the alleged crimes.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Third Bail Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The applicant filed a third bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail after being arrested on 02.12.2022 in connection with Crime No. ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022.

2. Allegations under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA):
The applicant was charged under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA, 2002. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was part of a syndicate involved in illegal extortion and money laundering, primarily focusing on coal and iron pallet transportation.

3. Involvement in Illegal Extortion and Money Laundering Syndicate:
The prosecution's case detailed the applicant's role as an officer in the Chhattisgarh State Civil Services, closely associated with Suryakant Tiwari. The applicant allegedly misused her position to facilitate and benefit from illegal extortion activities, receiving significant amounts of unaccounted cash and using it to acquire immovable properties.

4. Previous Bail Applications and Their Outcomes:
The applicant's first bail application was dismissed by the Special Judge on 20.01.2023 and subsequently by the High Court on 23.06.2023. The second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.05.2024. The Supreme Court also dismissed the applicant's appeal on 14.12.2023, stating there was sufficient evidence to prima facie conclude the applicant's involvement in money laundering.

5. Arguments for and Against Granting Bail:
The applicant's counsel argued for bail, citing prolonged custody, change in circumstances, and the applicant's cooperation with the investigation. They emphasized the applicant's status as a woman and mother, the lack of control over the current administration, and the delay in trial proceedings. Conversely, the Enforcement Directorate opposed bail, highlighting the applicant's influential role in the syndicate, potential to influence witnesses, and the severity of the economic offence.

6. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002:
Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The Supreme Court's observations in the applicant's case emphasized the need for judicious discretion, considering the extent of involvement and evidence collected.

7. Delay in Trial Proceedings:
The applicant's counsel argued that the trial had not commenced despite the investigation being completed, attributing the delay to the Enforcement Directorate. However, the court noted that the delay was partly due to the non-appearance of other accused and various applications filed by them, not solely attributable to the prosecution.

8. Role and Influence of the Applicant in the Alleged Crimes:
The court considered the applicant's significant role in the syndicate, her misuse of official position, and the substantial evidence of her involvement in money laundering. The court also noted the applicant's influential position and potential to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Conclusion:
The court, after considering the applicant's role, the evidence against her, and the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, rejected the third bail application. The court emphasized that the applicant had not fulfilled the twin conditions for granting bail under the PMLA, 2002, and noted the ongoing delay in trial proceedings was not solely due to the prosecution.

← Previous Next →