9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 484 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of regular bail under section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita 2023 read with Section 45 of the PMLA 2002 - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offence/predicate offence - no material to corroborate the false statements of the individuals who have been arraigned as co-accused persons in the instant case - HELD THAT - There is prima facie involvement of the applicant in the crime in question and the charge sheet has been filed. Since the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and there was material to infer his involvement in serious crimes. However the Apex Court has held that the power of ED to arrest must be based on objective and fair consideration of material against a person. Under the PMLA ED officers can arrest a person if they have reasons to believe based on the material in their possession that the individual is guilty. It has been held by the Apex Court that PMLA allowed arrests on the subjective opinion of ED officer the court said an officer s reasons to believe that a person was guilty an deserved arrest should not be based on mere suspicion. The Apex Court in the matter of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Aditya Tripathi 2023 (5) TMI 527 - SUPREME COURT has held that the power to arrest under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act (PMLA) cannot be exercised on the whims and fancies of Directorate of Enforcement (ED) officers. The court wondered if the ED even had a consistent uniform and one-rule-for-all policy on when they should arrest people. It said the ED s power to arrest must be based on objective and fair consideration of material against the accused. It is prima facie clear that on the one hand it is claimed that the matter is of a huge economic loss to the State Exchequer and the offence is of highly serious nature and on the other hand the distillers who are allegedly supplying illegal liquor causing huge financial loss to the State exchequer have not been made accused despite the fact that their names have been mentioned in the complaint made by the ED as member of the syndicate. Prima facie it appears that the prosecution has adopted an inconsistent stance being both hot and cold in its approach and has acted in a pick and choose manner in investigation. Conclusion - It has been revealed that in the investigation conducted by the police during the predicate office the applicant was part of the liquor syndicate and was involved in money-laundering and proceeds of crime along with other co-accused therefore even if it is presumed that no predicate offence has been levelled against him therefore the applicant is entitled to get bail under PMLA 2002 is not acceptable and deserves to be rejected and also considering the material placed on record which prima facie shows involvement of the applicant in the crime in question therefore considering entirety of the matter this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is unable to satisfy twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA 2002 as such it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant for the reasons. The prayer for bail made by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( BNSS ) read with Section 45 of the PMLA for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 3 4 of the PMLA 2002 is hereby rejected.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core issues considered in this judgment include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Entitlement to Bail under Section 483 BNSS and Section 45 PMLA The legal framework for bail under PMLA requires satisfying twin conditions: the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail, and the court must be convinced that the accused is not guilty of the offense and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. The Court interpreted these conditions strictly, emphasizing that the applicant failed to meet these requirements due to the serious nature of the allegations and the evidence suggesting his involvement in money laundering. Prolonged Pre-trial Incarceration and Article 21 The applicant argued that his prolonged detention violated his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Court acknowledged the importance of this right but concluded that the gravity of the economic offenses and the ongoing investigation justified the continued detention. The Court relied on precedents that economic offenses require a different approach due to their impact on society and the economy. Validity of Arrest under ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 The applicant contested his arrest, citing the quashing of a previous ECIR. The Court noted that the current ECIR was based on a new FIR with different scheduled offenses, thus justifying the fresh investigation and arrest. The Court found that the ED followed proper procedures under Section 19 of the PMLA, and the arrest was not arbitrary. Satisfaction of Twin Conditions under Section 45 PMLA The Court emphasized that the applicant did not satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45. The evidence suggested his involvement in a significant money laundering scheme, and there was a risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses if released on bail. The Court highlighted the seriousness of the allegations and the need for continued investigation. Sufficiency of Evidence for Involvement in Money Laundering The ED presented evidence, including digital records and witness statements, linking the applicant to the illegal liquor syndicate and money laundering activities. The Court found that this evidence, although circumstantial, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the applicant. The Court rejected the applicant's claims of coercion and inadmissibility of statements, noting that these issues could be addressed during the trial. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail due to the failure to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA. The judgment emphasized the following principles:
The Court concluded that the applicant's continued detention was necessary to prevent tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, and therefore, the bail application was rejected.
|
