2023 (3) TMI 68 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - predicate/scheduled offence - smuggling of contraband (Heroin) from Pakistan - HELD THAT - This Court is not in a position to record its prima facie satisfaction on the three ingredients in order to dilute the rigour of presumption arising out of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002. In view of law laid down in VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT , all the three conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 are to be satisfied. Thus, no ground is made out to grant indulgence in favour of the petitioner. The petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Conviction in a predicate/scheduled offence under various Acts.
3. Involvement of the accused in a case of money laundering and possession of contraband.
4. Investigation details and recovery of illegal items.
5. Allegations of smuggling narcotics and involvement of various individuals.
6. Conviction and sentencing of the petitioner by the Special Court.
7. Recording of ECIR and statements of the accused.
8. Complicity based on involvement of another individual.
9. Legal precedents and satisfaction required for granting bail under PMLA, 2002.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought regular bail in a case related to money laundering under the PMLA, 2002. The FIR was registered for the commission of money laundering offences punishable under the PMLA, 2002.
2. The petitioner had been previously convicted in a predicate/scheduled offence under the NDPS Act, Arms Act, and IT Act, where he was acquitted under the Arms Act and IT Act.
3. The investigation revealed the recovery of illegal items from the accused, including heroin, firearms, SIM cards, gold biscuits, and mobile phones, with specific quantities seized from the petitioner.
4. The case involved allegations of smuggling narcotics, with connections to individuals in the UK and Pakistan facilitating the illegal activities.
5. Following a full-fledged trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years by the Special Court.
6. The recording of ECIR and statements of the accused highlighted details about the petitioner's possessions, contacts, and involvement in the case.
7. The petitioner's complicity was questioned based on the involvement of another individual, which was a point of contention in the bail application.
8. Legal arguments referenced precedents and the satisfaction required for granting bail under the PMLA, 2002, emphasizing the need to fulfill specific conditions for bail.
9. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the bail application, citing the need to satisfy all conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, and referencing relevant legal judgments to support the decision.