9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 1412 - SC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of regular bail - money laundering - Scheduled Offence - Admissibility of statements - Scope of Inquiry under Section 45 of PMLA -reasonable grounds for believing - foundational facts-under Section 24 PMLA - Admissibility of the Statement of the Appellant - when a person is in judicial custody/custody in another case investigated by the same Investigating Agency, whether the statements recorded (in this case the statements dated 03.08.2023, 04.08.2023, 11.08.2023) for a new case in which his arrest is not yet shown, and which are claimed to contain incriminating material against the maker, would be admissible under Section 50? HELD THAT - Vijay Madanlal Choudhary 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT though held that the authorities under the PMLA are not police officers, did anticipate a scenario where in a given case, the protection of Section 25 of the Evidence Act may have to be made available to the accused. The Court observed that such situations will have to be examined on a case-to-case basis. This Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary anticipated the myriad situations that may arise in the recording of the Section 50 statement and discussed the parameters for dealing with them. In Rajaram Jaiswal vs. State of Bihar 1963 (4) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT , a judgment quoted in extenso in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, this Court observed that the expression police officer in Section 25 of the Evidence Act is not confined to persons who are members of the regularly constituted police force. In the facts of the present case, we hold that the statement of the appellant if to be considered as incriminating against the maker, will be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act since he has given the statement whilst in judicial custody, pursuant to another proceeding instituted by the same Investigating Agency. Taken as he was from the judicial custody to record the statement, it will be a travesty of justice to render the statement admissible against the appellant. There are no hesitation in holding that when an accused is in custody under PMLA irrespective of the case for which he is under custody, any statement under Section 50 PMLA to the same Investigating Agency is inadmissible against the maker. The reason being that the person in custody pursuant to the proceeding investigated by the same Investigating Agency is not a person who can be considered as one operating with a free mind. It will be extremely unsafe to render such statements admissible against the maker, as such a course of action would be contrary to all canons of fair play and justice. Since the words procedure established by law occurring in Article 21 has to be a reasonable and valid procedure, the statement of the appellant under Section 50 cannot be read upon in ECIR No. 5 of 2023 even though the appellant was at that point in custody in ECIR No. 4 of 2022. Misuse of Jail facilities by the Appellant - HELD THAT - Elaborate contentions have been made on the conduct of the appellant about certain facilities having been extended to him in jail. It is not rrequired to comment on them and if at all there is any violation of the prison Rules, the Investigating Agency ought to take up with the higher officials of the Jail. On the facts of the present case, they are not reasons enough to deny the appellant his liberty. The judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi is set aside - the Trial Court is directed to release the appellant on bail on furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs. 5 lakh with 2 sureties of the like amount and subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of bail application by the High Court. 2. Application of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). 3. Admissibility of statements under Section 50 of PMLA. 4. Role and involvement of the appellant in the alleged money laundering and forgery. 5. Consideration of the appellant's criminal antecedents. 6. Allegations of misuse of jail facilities by the appellant. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Dismissal of Bail Application by the High Court: The appellant challenged the High Court of Jharkhand's judgment dated 22.03.2024, which dismissed his bail application in connection with ECIR Case No. 5 of 2023 registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The appellant sought regular bail, which was initially denied by the Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, and subsequently by the High Court. 2. Application of Section 45 of PMLA: Section 45 of PMLA imposes twin conditions for granting bail: (i) the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application, and (ii) the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The Supreme Court emphasized that while Section 45 restricts the right to bail, it does not impose an absolute restraint. The principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" was reiterated, aligning with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. Admissibility of Statements under Section 50 of PMLA: The court examined whether statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA while the appellant was in judicial custody in another case (ECIR No. 4 of 2022) were admissible. It was held that such statements, if incriminating, would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as they were recorded while the appellant was in a vulnerable position, thus rendering them inadmissible against him. 4. Role and Involvement of the Appellant in the Alleged Money Laundering and Forgery: The prosecution alleged that the appellant conspired with other accused persons in acquiring proceeds of crime through fraudulent transactions involving land. However, the court found that the statements of co-accused and other evidence did not prima facie establish the appellant's involvement in the forgery or money laundering. The court noted that the statements of co-accused could not be used as substantive evidence against the appellant. 5. Consideration of the Appellant's Criminal Antecedents: The prosecution referred to the appellant's involvement in another ECIR (No. 4 of 2022) as a criminal antecedent. However, the court held that the merits of the bail in that case would be independently examined, and the appellant's continued detention in the present case was not justified based on the pendency of the other matter. 6. Allegations of Misuse of Jail Facilities by the Appellant: The court noted the allegations of misuse of jail facilities by the appellant but held that these were not sufficient reasons to deny bail. Any violations of prison rules should be addressed by the appropriate authorities. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court's order dated 22.03.2024. The Trial Court was directed to release the appellant on bail upon furnishing bail bonds for Rs. 5 lakh with two sureties of the like amount. The appellant was required to surrender his passport, report to the Investigating Officer twice a week, and refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The observations made were specific to the bail application and would not influence the trial court's proceedings. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
