2020 (12) TMI 639 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of Bail - Bribe - allegation that applicant was found in the possession of moveable and immoveable assets - money laundering - HELD THAT - Trial of the case in relation to disproportionate asset is also pending. In the meantime, on 23rd March, 2010, proceeding under the provisions of PML Act was also initiated by registering a case in the office of Enforcement Directorate as ECIR/02/PMLA/LZ0/2010 and notice was issued to the applicant, reply of which was given by the applicant along with the details of the friends and relatives, who allegedly gifted the applicant the cash or ornaments etc. Thereafter, notices were also issued to the said persons. Out of 31 members, 12 members appeared before the Enforcement Directorate and their statements were also recorded. It is also evident from the record that Ajay Raj Tripathi, who appeared on 13th March, 2014 before the authorities, categorically denied that any advance was given to the applicant. After investigation, evidence in relation to money laundering was also found against the applicant and the Proceed of Crime was found to be ₹ 1,38,63,445/-. Thereafter, provisional attachment order of property was passed on 30.09.2016, which was confirmed by the competent authority under Section 5 of the PML Act. After investigation, a complaint was filed on 31st March, 2017 before the Special Judge, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 8 of 2017 under Section 3/4 of PML Act. Summoning order was passed on 4th April, 2017, but since applicant failed to appear before the trial court, non-bailable warrant was issued on 17th March, 2018. There are no case for bail is made out at this stage - bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 3/4 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Lucknow.

Analysis:
The bail application was filed by the applicant seeking release in a case involving allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets through misuse of official position. The applicant, a Chief Regional Manager at IRCTC, was implicated in F.I.R. No. RC0062009A0033 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, another case was lodged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act regarding possession of assets amounting to ?2,13,81,313/- and income of ?1,51,24,983/-. The applicant was convicted in the first case and an appeal was pending. Investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was initiated, leading to Complaint Case No. 8 of 2017 under Section 3/4 PML Act.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated and provided details of assets acquired through gifts and property transactions. The Enforcement Directorate opposed the bail application, citing evidence of disproportionate assets and money laundering. The burden of proof regarding Proceeds of Crime was highlighted, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations. The Enforcement Directorate argued that the applicant failed to refute the facts presented in the complaint and witness statements under the PML Act.

The court considered the arguments and evidence, noting the applicant's arrest during a bribery trap and the findings of disproportionate assets and money laundering. The court rejected the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the need for expeditious trial. The court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings promptly, ensuring witness presence and no unnecessary adjournments. The applicant was given the option to reapply for bail if the trial was not completed within six months.

In conclusion, the court denied bail based on the gravity of the charges and the evidence presented, emphasizing the importance of a speedy trial and witness cooperation.