2022 (9) TMI 1214 - HC - Money Laundering

Money laundering - Seeking grant of bail - petitioner s age at the time of commission of the present offence - case is that the accused Vikram Seth operated a few bogus entities in his name and also in the name of the family members - HELD THAT - Given the petitioner s age at the time of the offence and that he was a student at Jalandhar, coupled with the nature of allegations against him, 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. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions - Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, 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 - In the alternative, the petitioner may furnish a personal bond of Rs. One lac only, and hand over to the the attesting officer, a fixed deposit(s) for Rs. One lac only, made in favour of the Trial Court. Petition allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 CrPC.
2. Criminal Antecedents of the Petitioner.
3. Allegations of Money Laundering.
4. Role of the Petitioner in the Alleged Offences.
5. Non-Arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement.
6. Legal Precedents on Bail.
7. Conditions for Granting Bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 CrPC:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC due to apprehension of arrest in connection with the FIR registered under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), read with Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.

2. Criminal Antecedents of the Petitioner:
The petitioner declared previous criminal antecedents, including FIR No. 7 dated 10.12.2021 under various sections of IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and FIR No. CBI/ACB/CH G-2015 RCCH @ 2015A002 dated 15.01.2015 under similar sections. The court cited Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., emphasizing that criminal antecedents alone cannot be the basis for rejecting bail.

3. Allegations of Money Laundering:
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) alleged that the petitioner was involved in operating bogus entities, availing fraudulent loans, and siphoning off funds. The allegations included obtaining 19 loans fraudulently from Bank of Baroda, Phagwara, resulting in a wrongful loss of Rs. 21.31 Crores to the bank. The funds were allegedly layered through various accounts and diverted for personal gains and repayment of old loans.

4. Role of the Petitioner in the Alleged Offences:
The specific role attributed to the petitioner included operating bogus entities, availing fraudulent loans, and siphoning off funds. The complaint detailed the petitioner's involvement in acquiring and possessing proceeds of crime, projecting them as untainted property, and committing the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA, punishable under Section 4.

5. Non-Arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement:
The ED chose not to arrest the accused until the trial court issued bailable and non-bailable warrants due to the accused's failure to appear. The court noted that the ED filed the complaint without arresting any accused, indicating a different footing for each accused in the FIR.

6. Legal Precedents on Bail:
The court referred to several legal precedents, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, and State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, emphasizing the principles of granting bail, such as the cumulative effect of circumstances, the prosecution's failure to establish a prima facie case, and the balance between personal freedom and investigation requirements.

7. Conditions for Granting Bail:
The court imposed several conditions for granting bail, including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and one surety for Rs. 5,00,000, or alternatively, a fixed deposit of Rs. 1,00,000. The petitioner was required to provide personal details, execute a bond for court attendance, and avoid influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The court also highlighted the pragmatic approach of allowing the accused to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the anticipatory bail petition, subject to the specified terms and conditions, emphasizing that the observations made were not an expression of opinion on the case's merits. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →