2021 (12) TMI 80 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of pre-arrest bail - laundering of proceeds of crime - economic offences or not - HELD THAT - Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be viewed with a different approach in the matter of bail, as such offences are normally sourced in deep-rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds and need to be looked at seriously, being grave offences that affect national economy as a whole and posing a serious threat to the financial health of the country. The irrefutable fact is that the present case originated from FIR No.5(3) 2018 dated 24.03.2018 and the evidence seized in connection therewith is already in the custody of the authorities. The petitioner has also been granted anticipatory bail in relation to the said FIR in August, 2019. Documentary evidence, which would be the fulcrum of the case, having already been secured and given the passage of time since registration of the earlier case, there is no manifest risk of the petitioner tampering with evidence or witnesses at this late stage. Further, his status and firm roots in society being undisputed, the petitioner is not shown to be a flight-risk. This Court finds no tangible reason to believe that he would abscond or try to evade the law and, in any event, the same can be guarded against by imposing restrictions. The petitioner shall be released on bail forthwith in the event of his arrest, subject to conditions imposed - bail petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of pre-arrest bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Necessity of custodial interrogation.
3. Risk of tampering with evidence and witnesses.
4. Considerations for granting anticipatory bail in economic offences.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Pre-Arrest Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002:
The petitioner, a former Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition in the Manipur Legislative Assembly, sought pre-arrest bail concerning ECIR No.02/GWZO/2020 registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The case originated from FIR No.5(3) 2018, which involved alleged offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner had already been granted anticipatory bail for the FIR in August 2019, and the current application sought similar relief for the new case registered by the ED.

2. Necessity of Custodial Interrogation:
The petitioner argued that since all relevant documents had already been seized and he had cooperated with the ED by providing additional documents, custodial interrogation was unnecessary. He assured continued cooperation with the investigation. Conversely, the ED contended that economic offences need a different approach, and custodial interrogation was essential for recording statements and gathering evidence.

3. Risk of Tampering with Evidence and Witnesses:
The ED argued that the petitioner, due to his high political stature and former official position, could tamper with evidence and influence witnesses. However, the court noted that the primary evidence had already been seized, and the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail in the related FIR. Given the passage of time and the petitioner's cooperation, the court found no substantial risk of tampering with evidence or witnesses.

4. Considerations for Granting Anticipatory Bail in Economic Offences:
The court referred to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing a different approach for economic offences due to their serious impact on the national economy. Factors such as the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, and the possibility of tampering with evidence or fleeing justice were considered. The court highlighted that anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional cases and with due consideration of these factors.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner, given his political stature and cooperation with the investigation, did not pose a flight risk or a significant threat of tampering with evidence. Therefore, the court allowed the bail petition with specific conditions to ensure continued cooperation and prevent any potential tampering or evasion.

Conditions for Bail:
1. Execution of a personal bond for ?1 lakh and two sureties of like sum each.
2. Continued cooperation with the investigation and production of documents as required.
3. Prohibition against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
4. Restriction on leaving the country without permission and surrender of passport to the ED.

The judgment highlights the court's careful consideration of the legal framework and specific circumstances of the case in granting pre-arrest bail while ensuring safeguards to facilitate an unhindered investigation.