9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 11 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Regular Bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - it is alleged that the co-accused Vikram Seth operated a few bogus entities in his name and also in the name of the family members - allegations against the petitioner are that being an accountant, he has sanctioned the loan without any verification - HELD THAT - Till the time of filing of the complaint, the Enforcement Directorate chose not to arrest the accused. Only when the concerned trial Court summoned the accused, as they failed to put in an appearance, the court issued bailable and non-bailable warrants, which led to the arrest of the accused Vikram Seth and in the interregnum also of the petitioner-Suresh Seth. Thus, it is clear that ED filed the complaint without arresting any of the accused. The most important aspect is the decision of the Directorate of Enforcement not to arrest all the accused; coupled with the nature of allegations attributed to each accused, the case of every accused in the FIR stood on a different footing and decided independently of the other. In GUDIKANTI NARASIMHULU AND ORS. VERSUS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 1977 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT , Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In PRAHLAD SINGH BHATI VERSUS N.C.T., DELHI AND ANR. 2001 (3) TMI 1053 - SUPREME COURT , Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations. In DATARAM SINGH VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. 2018 (2) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT , Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. If the petitioner finds bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be brought to the notice of this Court for appropriate reduction. Further, if the petitioner finds bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition - This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above, then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law - Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. 2. Criminal history of the accused. 3. Role of the petitioner in the alleged offence. 4. Parity in granting bail. 5. Conditions for granting bail. 6. Rights of the police for further investigation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Regular Bail under Section 439 CrPC: The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, apprehending arrest in connection with the FIR. The court considered this request based on the cumulative effect of various circumstances, including the nature of allegations, the role of the accused, and the decision of the Directorate of Enforcement not to arrest the accused initially. 2. Criminal History of the Accused: The petitioner declared a criminal history involving FIR No. 86 dated 30.07.2013 and FIR No. 61 dated 13.05.2013, both registered at City Phagwara, District Kapurthala, under various sections of IPC. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observation in Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., highlighting that criminal antecedents alone cannot be a ground for rejecting bail. The court must consider the role of the accused and other circumstances. 3. Role of the Petitioner in the Alleged Offence: The petitioner, being an accountant, was accused of sanctioning loans without verification, contributing to the fraudulent activities led by the main accused, Vikram Seth. The Enforcement Directorate's complaint detailed the fraudulent operations and misuse of loans by Vikram Seth and his associates, including the petitioner. 4. Parity in Granting Bail: The court noted that the main accused, Vikram Kumar Seth, was granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench, and this order was not challenged by the respondent. Thus, the petitioner's case was considered on the grounds of parity, leading to the granting of bail under similar conditions. 5. Conditions for Granting Bail: The court imposed several conditions for granting bail to ensure the petitioner does not influence the investigation, tamper with evidence, or intimidate witnesses. The petitioner was required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and a surety of Rs. 25,000 or a fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000. The court also allowed the petitioner to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits and provided options for modifying bail conditions if they violate fundamental rights or cause difficulty. 6. Rights of the Police for Further Investigation: The court clarified that the bail order does not limit the rights of the police or the investigating agency from conducting further investigations as per law. If new sections are added to the FIR, the bail order would apply to those sections if the maximum sentence is not greater than the existing sections. Otherwise, the petitioner would be given a minimum of seven days' notice to avail legal remedies. Conclusion: The petition for bail was allowed with specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent the petitioner from repeating the offence. The court emphasized that the bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial, avoiding conditions that deprive rights and liberties. The order highlighted the need for desirable behavior from the accused in return for protection from incarceration. All pending applications were disposed of.
|
