9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 753 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Regular bail - Money Laundering - embezzlement of government fund - scheduled offences - proceeds of crime - HELD THAT - In reading the entire complaint case there are allegations against this petitioner who happened to be a senior I.A.S officer of the State of Jharkhand to deposit a huge cash amount. A sum of Rs. 01.33 crore has been in the form of cash in the name of brother of her Chartered Accountant and mother of this petitioner has been also found to be invested which has come in the investigation. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not using the proceeds of crime in light of section 2(1)( u ) of the Act. There is no doubt that even if the allegation is one of the grave economic offence it is not a rule that the bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar under the relevant enactment passed by the Legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so as has been discussed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2019 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT , but at the same time the consideration will have to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and seeking the presence of the accused to stand trial. The bail are being granted on certain conditions in appropriate cases and the object of putting such conditions should be to avoid possibility by the person hampering the investigation Section 45 of the Act is no more res integra. The conditions as embodied under section 45 of the Act will have to be complied even in respect of application for bail made under section 439 of the Cr. P.C. There are allegations against this petitioner of laundering a huge amount of money which has come in the investigation and it has been elaborately discussed - The modus operandi as adopted by the petitioner disclosed that she first open bank accounts for short duration, then deposited huge cash into it, then converted those cash into dem and drafts to purchase insurance policies of longer durations and prematurely closed those policies to bring back liquidity in her accounts for further investment. She used to invest the same either in the form of capital infusion by her brother Siddharth Singhal and her husband Abhishek Jha who is also an accused in their company M/s Pulse Sanjeevani Healthcare Private Ltd. Huge amount of cash amounting to Rs.73.81 lakhs was deposited in her various ICICI bank accounts. Admittedly, the petitioner is a senior I.A.S officer of the State of Jharkhand. In the departmental proceeding she has been exonerated. The Court does not want to make any comment on that exoneration as this Court is only considering the regular bail application of the petitioner - the apprehension of the Enforcement Directorate E.D with regard to tempering with the evidence cannot be ruled out. The Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Petitioner's request for regular bail in connection with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. Allegations of embezzlement and defalcation of funds. 3. Petitioner's involvement in money laundering and related activities. 4. Departmental exoneration and its impact on criminal proceedings. 5. Applicability of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 6. Petitioner's medical condition as a ground for bail. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Petitioner's Request for Regular Bail: The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with ECIR 03 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi. The petitioner argued that she was a responsible IAS officer with a high level of integrity and had been exonerated in departmental proceedings. She also contended that the investigation against her had been completed, and she should be granted bail. 2. Allegations of Embezzlement and Defalcation of Funds: The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, while serving as Deputy Commissioner in Khunti district, sanctioned funds for various development projects and received illegal commissions in connivance with other officials. The co-accused, Ram Binod Prasad Sinha, stated that he paid commissions for smooth functioning from allocation to payment of final installments. The petitioner's successor found discrepancies in the projects executed, leading to allegations of embezzlement of Rs.18.06 crores. The petitioner was also found to have deposited large sums of cash during this period. 3. Petitioner's Involvement in Money Laundering and Related Activities: The prosecution's supplementary complaint revealed that the petitioner had multiple bank accounts and PAN numbers, used to deposit cash, convert it to demand drafts, purchase insurance policies, and prematurely close them for further investments, including in Pulse Super Speciality Hospital. Searches conducted at various locations related to the petitioner resulted in the seizure of Rs.19.76 crores in cash and other documents. The co-accused, Suman Kumar, admitted that most of the cash seized belonged to the petitioner and was kept on her behalf. The petitioner and her husband were found to have laundered proceeds of crime for various investments. 4. Departmental Exoneration and Its Impact on Criminal Proceedings: The petitioner argued that her exoneration in departmental proceedings should impact the criminal proceedings against her. She relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. C.B.I., which held that if a person is exonerated on merits in departmental proceedings, criminal prosecution on the same facts cannot continue. However, the court noted that the charges in departmental proceedings and the current case were different, and the petitioner's exoneration did not preclude criminal prosecution. 5. Applicability of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act: The court considered the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, which imposes conditions for granting bail, including the necessity for the prosecutor to oppose bail and the court's satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. The court noted that the conditions under Section 45 are mandatory and must be complied with, even in bail applications under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The court found that the petitioner had not met these conditions, given the serious allegations and the ongoing investigation. 6. Petitioner's Medical Condition as a Ground for Bail: The petitioner argued that she should be granted bail on medical grounds, citing the Delhi High Court's order in Devki Nandan Garg v. Directorate of Enforcement and the Supreme Court's decision in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement. However, the court found that the petitioner was medically stable and fit, as per the medical report, and there was no immediate need for bail on medical grounds. Conclusion: The court dismissed the bail petition, noting the serious allegations of money laundering and embezzlement against the petitioner, her influence as a senior IAS officer, and the potential for tampering with evidence. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the need to ensure the petitioner's presence for trial.
|
