9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 596 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Seeking grant of Regular Bail - objection taken in the affidavit is that prior to the arrest, two times non-bailable warrants were issued to which the petitioner did not respond and during the custody period, he has not cooperated with the investigation - apprehension that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may misuse the concession of bail or evade the process of law or may not face the trial - twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA Act not fulfilled - HELD THAT - It is not disputed that the petitioner when released on interim bail has undergone about 06 months of custody. Since the petitioner is seeking parity with the co-accused, who has already been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 01.07.2022 wherein it was observed that the co-accused qualifies the triple test under Section 45 of the PMLA Act. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in long custody and his co-accused has already been released on bail and no amount was recovered from the petitioner, the present petition is allowed and the interim order dated 26.12.2022, is made absolute and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 3. Connection to illegal mining activities. 4. Role and involvement of the petitioner. 5. Health condition of the petitioner. 6. Applicability of the triple test under Section 45 of PMLA. 7. Parity with co-accused granted bail. 8. Political implications and motivations. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of Regular Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.: The petitioner sought regular bail, referencing the co-accused who was granted bail in a similar case. The petitioner had been in custody for about five months, and the investigation was complete, with a formal complaint filed. The court considered these factors and the fact that the petitioner was not required for further custodial investigation. 2. Allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA): The petitioner was accused under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged that the petitioner was involved in money laundering activities related to illegal mining. The court examined the ED's investigation and found that the petitioner was not directly managing the finances of the mining operations. 3. Connection to Illegal Mining Activities: The case involved allegations of illegal mining activities, where the petitioner was accused of assisting in these operations. The court noted that the petitioner was helping the main accused, Kudratdeep Singh, but there was no direct evidence linking him to the financial aspects of the illegal mining. 4. Role and Involvement of the Petitioner: The petitioner's role was primarily as an assistant to Kudratdeep Singh in mining operations. The court found that the petitioner was not named in the initial FIR and was not directly involved in the financial transactions. The ED's investigation suggested that the petitioner helped in resolving disputes and supervising mining activities. 5. Health Condition of the Petitioner: The petitioner claimed to have heart problems and required urgent medical treatment. The court considered the medical records from the Central Jail, Kapurthala, which supported the petitioner's claim. This medical condition was deemed a valid ground for granting bail. 6. Applicability of the Triple Test under Section 45 of PMLA: The court evaluated the triple test under Section 45 of PMLA, which includes giving the Public Prosecutor an opportunity to oppose the bail, ensuring that the accused is not guilty, and that the accused is not likely to commit an offense while on bail. The court found that the petitioner met these conditions, as there were no further complaints or FIRs against him, and all relevant documents were already in the custody of the investigating agency. 7. Parity with Co-accused Granted Bail: The petitioner sought parity with the co-accused, who had been granted regular bail. The court noted that the co-accused was granted bail under similar circumstances and that the petitioner had not misused the interim bail granted earlier. This supported the petitioner's case for regular bail. 8. Political Implications and Motivations: The petitioner argued that the timing of the FIR and the involvement of his uncle, the then Chief Minister of Punjab, suggested political motivations behind the case. The court acknowledged these arguments, noting that the FIR was registered four years after the initial complaint and during a politically sensitive period. Conclusion: The court granted regular bail to the petitioner, considering the completion of the investigation, the petitioner's health condition, the lack of direct financial involvement, and the parity with the co-accused. The petitioner was ordered to furnish bail and sureties, surrender his passport, and not leave the country without court permission. The court emphasized that the allegations were yet to be proven and that the petitioner had a probable defense.
|
