2024 (11) TMI 60 - SCH - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - complaint under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - offences punishable under Sections 186, 204, 353, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - HELD THAT - While filing the charge-sheet on 8th June, 2023 in FIR No.129 of 2022, it was mentioned that an offence under Section 384 of the IPC appears to have been committed in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is recorded that therefore, a report be submitted to the concerned Police Station in the State of Chhattisgarh through proper channel. While filing the charge-sheet, Section 120-B of the IPC was dropped. Thus, on the date of filing of the charge-sheet on 8th June, 2023, there was no scheduled offence. As late as on 17th January, 2024, another FIR was registered in Chhattisgarh in which allegation is made about the commission of offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC. Thus, when the complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA Act was filed, the scheduled offence was not in existence. Even in the charge-sheet filed in the FIR which is stated to be a scheduled offence in the complaint, there was no allegation of commission of any scheduled offence. As late as on 19th July, 2024, now the charge-sheet has been filed in the State of Chhattisgah for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC. Considering the long period of incarceration and considering the peculiar fact of these appeals, continuation of custody of the appellants will be violation of their right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA Act. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act).
- Consideration of prolonged incarceration and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Granting bail under Section 4 of the PMLA Act.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard two criminal appeals arising from the same ECIR and complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA Act. The appellants in both cases had been in custody for significant periods. Initially, an FIR was registered with various IPC sections, including Section 120-B, which was not considered a scheduled offence. Subsequently, Section 384 of the IPC was added, leading to the recording of an ECIR. However, at the time of filing the charge-sheet, no scheduled offence existed. Another FIR in Chhattisgarh alleged an offence under Section 384 of the IPC, but the scheduled offence was not established until a later date. The court noted the prolonged incarceration and the absence of a scheduled offence at crucial stages, leading to a potential violation of the appellants' rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court held that due to the unique circumstances and extended custody periods, continuing the appellants' custody would violate their rights under Article 21. Consequently, the appellants were granted bail for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA Act. The court directed the Special Court to release the appellants on bail upon suitable terms and conditions after hearing the Enforcement Directorate. Importantly, the court clarified that the observations in the order were solely for the purpose of bail consideration and would not impact the merits of the complaint. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed based on the outlined terms.