2020 (2) TMI 1019 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of Anticipatory Bail - offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Money Laundering - HELD THAT - There are sufficient materials available on the record that shows the hand of the petitioner, who in collusion with several other accused persons was involved in the money laundering of crores of rupees. The privilege of anticipatory bail cannot be to the petitioner - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail in connection with money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Detailed Analysis:
The prosecution case involves a complaint disclosing offenses under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against several individuals and bank officials. The allegations include the deposit of large sums of money in various accounts without the account holders' knowledge, followed by transfers to different locations to facilitate the proceeds of crime during demonetization. Statements under Section 50 of the PMLA Act, CDR details, and other documents support these allegations.

Regarding the petitioner, it is alleged that he knowingly participated in transferring proceeds of crime by receiving amounts in a bank account and facilitating transfers to different places. The complaint suggests that the petitioner and other accused individuals worked together in a conspiracy to launder the proceeds of crime.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the complaint did not implicate the petitioner at any stage of the money laundering process and pointed out that the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail in a previous case. However, the Union of India presented contradictory evidence, including statements and CDR analysis, indicating the petitioner's active involvement in the money laundering scheme.

The court considered various legal precedents, including the judgment in "Nikesh Tarachand Shah Versus Union of India," which declared certain conditions of the PMLA Act ultra vires. However, the court emphasized that the grant of anticipatory bail depends on the specific facts and evidence of each case. In this instance, ample evidence on record showed the petitioner's collusion with other accused persons in laundering crores of rupees.

Additionally, the court noted that anticipatory bail requests of other co-accused individuals had been rejected previously. After evaluating all aspects of the case, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, leading to the dismissal of the application.