9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1157 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking enlargement on bail - Money Laundering - scheduled offences - discrepancies including diversion of APSSDC funds through various shell companies - requirement under Section 45 (1) of the PMLA for grant of bail, fulfilled or not - HELD THAT - In an identical case in SANJAY RAGHUNATH AGARWAL VERSUS THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 (4) TMI 874 - SUPREME COURT , lodging of the prosecution complaint is sequel to the registration of the FIR in the predicate offence way back in the year 2021. In the present case on hand also, no charge sheet has been filed in the predicate offence for the last more than 15 months. The petitioner herein is also a Chartered Accountant by profession and has been in jail from 04.03.2023. It is the first offence insofar as the petitioner is concerned. There are no other complaints registered as against him. The said argument gives room to say that second condition in clause (2) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA would be satisfied. In the aforesaid circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner is not justified. In respect of a query raised by the investigating agency, the petitioner herein gave response to each and every question that has been asked for. Prosecution complaint was also filed on 01.05.2023. The petitioner was arrested on 04.03.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody. Time and again, petitioner is continuously attending before the investigating agency and co-operating with the investigation. This Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary to detain the petitioner in jail further. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court feels that request of the petitioner for grant of bail can be considered, however, on certain conditions. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the I Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the CrPC. 2. Compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA regarding the arrest of the petitioner. 3. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA for granting bail. 4. Evaluation of evidence and allegations against the petitioner. 5. Precedent cases and their relevance to the current case. Issue-wise Comprehensive Details: 1. Whether the petitioner should be granted bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the CrPC: The petitioner sought bail in connection with an FIR registered under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, was implicated as A.4 in the case for allegedly facilitating the diversion of government funds intended for the SIEMENS project. 2. Compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA regarding the arrest of the petitioner: The petitioner's counsel argued that Section 19 of the PMLA requires the Authorized Officer to have a reason to believe, based on material evidence, that the person is guilty of an offense under the Act. It was contended that the Authorized Officer relied on hearsay and uncorroborated statements, and the petitioner had been cooperating with the investigation. 3. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA for granting bail: The respondent's counsel emphasized the restrictions imposed by Section 45 of the PMLA, which requires the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offense and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. The petitioner's counsel argued that no charge sheet had been filed in the predicate offense, and thus, the presumption of guilt could not be drawn. 4. Evaluation of evidence and allegations against the petitioner: The court noted that the petitioner had been cooperating with the investigation and that no incriminating material had been found during searches of his premises. The court also observed that the petitioner had not received any funds in his account, and the allegations were primarily based on his association with other accused individuals. 5. Precedent cases and their relevance to the current case: The petitioner's counsel cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Sanjay Raghunath Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, to argue that bail should be granted based on the principles of bail jurisprudence and the specific facts of the case. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner had been cooperating with the investigation, no charge sheet had been filed in the predicate offense, and there was no evidence of money being transferred to his account. The court granted bail to the petitioner with conditions, including surrendering his passport and attending the investigating agency once a week.
|
