9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 750 - HC - Money LaunderingRejection of Bail application - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - sale of property and receipt of cash - reliability of statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 - burden of proof to prove non-involvement in the crime of money laundering - requirements under Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 complied or not - HELD THAT - It is necessary for the applicant to prima facie establish that he is not involved in the commission of offence under the PMLA, 2002 to enlarge on bail, therefore, this Court is now considering the factual matrix as projected by the applicant and the respondent to substantiate their respective stands. The submission made by learned Senior counsel for the applicant that the applicant has sold the property to Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasia for consideration of Rs. 2.53 crore through registered sale-deed and through banking channels, which cannot be said to be amount of proceed of crime and his submission that allegations made by the respondent that the present applicant has received cash of Rs. 61.02 lacs over the above sale proceeds, which were then deposited into his bank account, is not proceed of crime, cannot be prima facie considered for releasing the applicant on bail as the applicant in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 has admitted that Mr. Anurag Chaurasia and Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasia have purchased the land and the sale proceeds of the firm was Rs. 2,53,59,842/- and he was working as Supervisor in the firm and in the further statement, he has admitted that he will submit invoice related to sale proceeds of Rs. 61,02,550/- but he has stated that he has no sale receipt as recorded on 26.10.2022. Taking into consideration the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, wherein he has stated that the excess amount of Rs. 61.02 lacs as proceed of sale of fruits but this was denied by one Chandrashekhar Sinha in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 wherein he has stated that the bill produced by the present applicant is bogus. From these statements, it is quite vivid that prima facie involvement of the applicant is also in the commission of offence under the PMLA, 2002. As such, twin conditions which are required for grant of bail, are not available. Considering the records of the case, other material placed on record, which prima facie shows involvement of the applicant in crime in question, therefore, considering entirety of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is unable to satisfy twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, as such, it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant - the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is liable to be and is hereby rejected. Application rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 3. Compliance with Section 45 of the PMLA for bail. 4. Consideration of prolonged incarceration and right to speedy trial. Summary: Issue 1: Grant of Regular Bail The applicant filed for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant was arrested on 23.01.2023 in connection with Crime No. ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 registered at the Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal Office, Raipur for offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Issue 2: Allegations under PMLA The prosecution alleged that during a search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, incriminating materials were found. The applicant was implicated in a criminal conspiracy involving illegal levy collection on coal, unaccounted cash movement, and tampering with documents. Diaries recovered indicated transactions of cash money between the main accused and others, including the applicant. Issue 3: Compliance with Section 45 of PMLA The court considered the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail. The applicant argued that he was not involved in the scheduled offence and had cooperated with the investigation. However, the court noted that the applicant's statements under Section 50 of the PMLA revealed inconsistencies and prima facie involvement in the offence. The court cited various judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, emphasizing the rigour of Section 45 and the necessity for the applicant to prove non-involvement in money laundering. Issue 4: Prolonged Incarceration and Right to Speedy Trial The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant had been in jail for over nine months and that the trial might take longer, thus justifying bail. The court referred to the Supreme Court's stance in cases like Manish Sisodia Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, which highlighted the importance of the right to a speedy trial but also pointed out that prolonged detention without trial should not become punishment. However, the court found that the applicant did not meet the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. Conclusion: The bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected. The court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, considering the prima facie evidence of his involvement in the alleged offences. The observations made in the judgment are specific to the bail application and do not influence the trial court's proceedings on the merits of the case.
|
