9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 744 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - collection of funds under false promises of exorbitant high rate of interest on the deposits - HELD THAT - Primarily delay in trial is attributable to the accused. Though the complaint was filed in the year 2018. The trial court could deliver the copies under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C only on 22nd March, 2022 to the accused. Prosecution cannot be blamed for causing delay in conducting ML Case No.2 of 2018. It is also not out of place to mention that the petitioner is involved in money laundering of huge sum of money amounting to Rs.1750 crores (approximately). He has already siphoned out a sum of Rs.6666 crores which are proceeds of crime. The Enforcement Directorate has also produced reports and documents as to how the petitioner tried to coerce the present director of M/s Chocolate Group of Hotels for extortion of money and wrongful gain. Repayment process by the High Court constituted Asset Disposal Committee has been going on. The benefit of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be granted - Prayer for bail of the accused Goutam Kundu is, thus, considered and rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for bail under Section 436A read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Allegations and investigation findings against the accused. 3. Application of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Previous bail applications and court orders. 5. Arguments from both petitioner and Enforcement Directorate. 6. Delays in the trial and their attribution. 7. Court's decision on the bail application. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Bail under Section 436A read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The petitioner filed an application for bail under Section 436A read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing that he had been in custody for more than three years and seven months, which exceeds one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offense under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). 2. Allegations and Investigation Findings Against the Accused: The petitioner is implicated in ML Case No.2 of 2018 under various penal provisions of the PMLA, arising out of ECIR No.KLZO/08/2015. The Rose Valley Group of Companies, chaired by the petitioner, allegedly collected approximately Rs.17,520 crores from the public under false promises of high returns and failed to repay Rs.6,666 crores, constituting proceeds of crime. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated an investigation and filed a complaint under Section 45 of the PMLA. 3. Application of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The petitioner argued that under Section 436A, he is entitled to statutory bail, having been in custody for more than half of the maximum period of imprisonment for the offense. The provision mandates the release of an undertrial prisoner who has undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offense. 4. Previous Bail Applications and Court Orders: The petitioner had previously filed several bail applications, which were rejected. The trial court had earlier allowed his application under Section 436A in ML Case No.3 of 2015, releasing him on bail. However, the current application was rejected by the learned Judge, Special CBI Court No.1, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, on 19th May 2022. 5. Arguments from Both Petitioner and Enforcement Directorate: The petitioner cited the Supreme Court's decision in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, emphasizing the mandatory nature of Section 436A. The ED opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner had delayed the trial and might influence witnesses and officials if released. The ED's report detailed the petitioner's non-cooperation and attempts to misuse his position while on interim bail. 6. Delays in the Trial and Their Attribution: The court examined the delays in the trial, attributing them primarily to the petitioner. Despite the complaint being filed in 2018, the trial court could only deliver the copies under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. to the accused on 22nd March 2022. The court found that the prosecution could not be blamed for the delay. 7. Court's Decision on the Bail Application: The court denied the bail application, considering the petitioner's involvement in a significant money laundering case involving Rs.17,520 crores and the substantial proceeds of crime. The court also noted the petitioner's attempts to influence and extort money from company officials. Consequently, the prayer for bail under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected, and the motion was disposed of on contest.
|
