2022 (11) TMI 754 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - Scheduled offence - laundering of black money and political money - these companies are used as Shell Companies by politicians - HELD THAT - Rigor of Sub-Section-(i) of Section 45 of PML Act is not in dispute, the court comes to a conclusion either to allow or reject the bail, these two conditions are required to be followed. ED has been provided full opportunity to oppose the bail. Prima facie the records are required to be considered for believing that the accused persons are not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Proviso to said Section speaks of granting bail, if it is less than Rs. 1 crore. The petitioner is a practicing advocate, in that circumstance, the liability of the petitioner for further investigation, interrogation and facing trial is not jeopardized and he is already held to be not at flight risk and there is no possibility of tampering the evidence or influencing / intimidating the witnesses, as has been submitted by the Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It has been reported that in Hare Street P.S. Case No. 222 of 2022, the petitioner has already been granted bail and this case has been registered on the basis of that case, which is in view of the provisions of PML Act and the offence is also coming under the scheduled offence. Considering all these aspects of the matter including the duration of custody of the petitioner in the present case, as he is in jail custody since 18.08.2022, the court comes to a conclusion that he is entitled to be granted bail - application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Regular bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act).
2. Allegations of money laundering and corruption.
3. Jurisdictional issues regarding the place of occurrence and police station.
4. Conspiracy and entrapment claims.
5. Application of Section 45 of the PML Act.
6. Consideration of bail under economic offences.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Regular Bail Application under PML Act:
The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with ECIR Case No. 05 of 2022, involving offences under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PML Act, Section 120-B and Section 384 of the IPC, and Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and that no case under the PML Act was made out against him. He emphasized his reputation as a renowned lawyer and claimed that the allegations were a result of a conspiracy to trap him.

2. Allegations of Money Laundering and Corruption:
The complaint alleged that the petitioner, along with others, was involved in laundering black money and political money through shell companies. It was further alleged that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs. 10 Crore, later reduced to Rs. 1 Crore, to settle a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by managing courts and government agencies. The petitioner was accused of receiving Rs. 50 lakhs as a bribe, which was considered "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(i)(u) of the PML Act.

3. Jurisdictional Issues:
The petitioner argued that the alleged place of occurrence, Quest Mall in Kolkata, did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Hare Street Police Station, where the case was registered. The petitioner claimed that Amit Kumar Agrawal, the complainant, had close associations with officers of the Hare Street Police Station and that the case was registered and the petitioner was arrested outside the jurisdiction of the police station.

4. Conspiracy and Entrapment Claims:
The petitioner claimed that Amit Kumar Agrawal, along with others, conspired to trap him. It was argued that Amit Kumar Agrawal influenced the petitioner to come to Kolkata under false pretenses and then trapped him with the help of Kolkata police officials. The petitioner contended that the entire incident was orchestrated to frustrate the ongoing PIL and implicate him falsely.

5. Application of Section 45 of the PML Act:
The court examined the rigor of Section 45 of the PML Act, which imposes conditions for granting bail. It was noted that the conditions under Section 45 are mandatory and need to be complied with. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which clarified that the property involved must be directly or indirectly derived from criminal activity related to a scheduled offence to be considered "proceeds of crime."

6. Consideration of Bail under Economic Offences:
The court considered the principles of bail, emphasizing that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. It was noted that the gravity of the offence, the severity of the punishment, and the potential impact on society should be considered. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, which highlighted that even in cases of economic offences, bail should not be denied as a rule but should be considered based on the facts of each case.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to bail, considering the duration of his custody, the materials on record, and the fact that he was not a flight risk. The petitioner was granted bail with conditions, including depositing his passport, not leaving the country without court permission, and making himself available for further investigation. The findings in the judgment were stated to not have any bearing on other accused in the case.