9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1160 - HC - Money LaunderingPre-arrest Bail application - Obtaining loan fraudulently - running of bogus firms and inflating the turnover - Correctness of decision of the Directorate of Enforcement not to arrest all the accused - framing of charges - HELD THAT - Given the nature of allegations against the petitioner, there would be no justification to send the accused to pre-trial custody at the stage of framing of the charges. In GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT , a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In the present case, without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973 - in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the case mentioned above, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac only, and furnishing one surety for Rs. Five lacs, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Before accepting the sureties, the concerned officer must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in Court, then such surety is capable of producing the petitioner before the Court. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. 2. Criminal antecedents of the petitioner. 3. Allegations of money laundering. 4. Role of the petitioner in the alleged crime. 5. Decision of the Directorate of Enforcement not to arrest the accused. 6. Conditions for granting bail. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 CrPC: The petitioner approached the court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, apprehending arrest in the FIR filed under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The court noted that anticipatory bail is sought to avoid pre-trial incarceration. 2. Criminal Antecedents of the Petitioner: The petitioner disclosed his criminal history in the bail application, listing two FIRs registered in 2013 under various sections of the IPC, including 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. The court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., emphasizing that criminal antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail unless the accused's role in the specific case is examined. 3. Allegations of Money Laundering: The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) alleged that the petitioner operated several bogus entities and fraudulently availed loans from Bank of Baroda, resulting in a wrongful loss of Rs. 21.31 Crores. The complaint detailed how the petitioner and his associates engaged in criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and money laundering, involving layering and diversion of funds. 4. Role of the Petitioner in the Alleged Crime: The complaint attributed a specific role to the petitioner, stating that he was a close associate and accountant of the main accused, Vikram Seth. The petitioner allegedly assisted in generating, layering, and diverting proceeds of crime. He also lured small-scale traders to avail loans from the bank and facilitated circular transactions and accommodation entries. 5. Decision of the Directorate of Enforcement Not to Arrest the Accused: The court observed that the ED chose not to arrest the accused initially and only sought arrest after the trial court issued warrants due to non-appearance. This indicated that the ED filed the complaint without arresting any accused, which influenced the court's decision on bail. 6. Conditions for Granting Bail: The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, emphasizing that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. The court highlighted the need for a humane and judicious approach in granting bail and set conditions for the petitioner: - Furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and one surety for Rs. 5,00,000. - Alternatively, furnishing a fixed deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 in favor of the trial court. - Providing permanent address, phone number, and email details. - Executing a bond for court attendance. - Not influencing or tampering with evidence or witnesses. The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, subject to these conditions, and disposed of all pending applications.
|
