9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 239 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Bail - money laundering - scheduled offences - enjoying proceeds of crime in personal benefits - Section 120-B/294/341/406/409/420/467/ 468/471/ 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/5 of the Pries Cheat and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1976 - Section 45 of PML Act - HELD THAT - In the instant case the Petitioner is inside custody since 16th October, 2017 which means he has already incarcerated more than three years and 10 months. Apart from this, admittedly, the Petitioner is languishing in custody from 30th May, 2013 in connection with Kharavela Nagar P.S. Case No.44 of 2013 and subsequent registration of the CBI case. The instant case is concerning offences under the PMLA Act. So keeping in view the restrictions contained in Section 45 of the PMLA Act for grant of bail as well as the nature of allegations and the amount involved in the commission of offence which is more than 300 crores, the Petitioner cannot be allowed to be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations against the Petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 3. Dispute regarding the period of custody. 4. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA for granting bail. 5. Reference to relevant case laws and precedents. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Bail Under Section 439 Cr.P.C.: The Petitioner filed an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in connection with Crl. Misc. (PMLA) Case No.34 of 2016. The case is pending before the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge in Bhubaneswar. 2. Allegations Against the Petitioner: The Petitioner, a Director of Arthatatwa Infra India Pvt. Ltd. and Finance Manager of Arthatatwa Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., is accused of managing financial transactions and collecting money from the public under false promises of high returns. He is alleged to have been actively involved in money laundering offenses alongside the principal accused, Pradip Kumar Sethi, and benefited personally from the proceeds of the crime. 3. Dispute Regarding the Period of Custody: There was a dispute about the Petitioner's custody period. The Petitioner claimed to be in custody since 30th April 2015, while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued he was in custody since 27th August 2019. The court reviewed the order sheet from the Special Judge and determined that the Petitioner's custody in the present case began on 16th October 2017. 4. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA for Granting Bail: Section 45 of the PMLA stipulates that no accused person shall be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The court emphasized the stringent conditions under Section 45 and noted that the Petitioner had been in custody for a significant period. 5. Reference to Relevant Case Laws and Precedents: The court referred to several judgments, including Union of India v. K.A. Nazeeb, which highlighted the distinction between bail application considerations and petition for cancellation. The Supreme Court in that case emphasized the necessity to record reasons for bail without evaluating evidence on merits and considered the length of custody and unlikelihood of trial completion. The court also cited Gouttam Kundu v. Manoj Kumar, which stressed the mandatory nature of conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, and Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, reiterating similar views. The court concluded that the restrictions in Section 45 of PMLA, the nature of allegations, and the amount involved (more than ?300 crores) warranted denial of bail. Conclusion: The Petitioner's prayer for bail was rejected due to the stringent conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, the serious nature of allegations, and the substantial amount involved in the offense. The court directed the trial court to expedite the trial's completion. An urgent certified copy of the order was issued as per rules.
|
