2020 (2) TMI 1257 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of anticipatory bail - Money Laundering - allegation against the petitioners for being in possession of disproportionate assets to the known sources of his income - Section 45(1) of the PMLA - HELD THAT - Both the parties have tried to argue the case on merits, which in considered opinion of this Court is not necessary for deciding the bail, lest it may prejudice the case of any of the parties. Evidently, the investigation started in the complaint w.e.f. 18.02.2016. For more than 2 years, the petitioners were never sought to be arrested, rather they were allowed to join the investigation by means of recording their statements and provisional attachment of their properties was also done. Petitioners could have been arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA, but the same was not done by the respondent- Department - Interim protection was granted to the petitioners by this Court after filing of the complaint. The complaint came to be filed only 31.08.2018 and thereafter order of summoning was passed on 02.11.2018. Statements of the petitioners have already been recorded and they have shown their readiness to join the proceedings as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency. Interim orders are made absolute - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
2. Allegations of money laundering and possession of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Attachment of properties by the Enforcement Directorate.
4. Interim bail and compliance with investigation requirements.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 65 of the PMLA

[1]. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in Prosecution Complaint No. COMA/2/2018 dated 31.08.2018 under Section 45(1) of the PMLA.

[2]. The initial FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleged possession of disproportionate assets. The petitioners were granted bail in FIR No.12 dated 26.08.2015 under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC.

[5]. The trial court summoned the petitioners to face trial under Section 45(1) of the PMLA. Mandeep Singh's application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Special Judge.

[6]. Interim bail was granted to the petitioner-Mandeep Singh to enable his appearance before the Investigating Officer.

[7]-[8]. Similar interim orders were passed in CRM-M No.19330 of 2019 and CRM-M No.21330 of 2019.

Issue 2: Allegations of money laundering and possession of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

[3]. The FIR alleged money laundering under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, based on the disproportionate assets case.

[4]. The FIR was against Mandeep Singh, IAS, with allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets, and other accused/petitioners were implicated for connivance.

[9]. The investigation started on 18.02.2016, and the complaint was filed on 31.08.2018. The petitioners were summoned on 02.11.2018. They were not arrested during the investigation process.

[10]. Statements of petitioners were recorded during the investigation, and they were not arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA.

Issue 3: Attachment of properties by the Enforcement Directorate

[11]. The Enforcement Directorate attached 33 properties worth ?2,62,46,148/-. Hotels Marc Royale-I and Marc Royale-II were also attached, with a combined distressed value of ?70 crores.

[18]. The Directorate attached the petitioners' properties as per the valuation shown in the documents.

[19]. The petitioners were not arrested during the investigation, and their properties were provisionally attached.

[20]. The prosecution attached significant properties, including hotels, with a distressed value of about ?70 crores.

Issue 4: Interim bail and compliance with investigation requirements

[12]. The petitioners complied with the interim bail conditions and furnished bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

[14]. The petitioners expressed readiness to join further investigation if required.

[15]. The respondent argued that the petitioners should surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail.

[16]. The court considered the submissions of both parties.

[17]. The court refrained from discussing the merits to avoid prejudicing the case.

[21]. The Division Bench of this Court in CRM-M No.28490 of 2018 held that the rigour of Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA applies only when an accused is arrested under Section 19 of the Act. This supports the petitioners' case for confirmation of interim anticipatory bail.

[22]. The interim orders dated 19.04.2019, 30.04.2019, and 10.05.2019 were made absolute.

[23]. All petitions were disposed of accordingly.