2023 (11) TMI 903 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - seeking grant of bail - bogus product bookings - conditions specified under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 satisfied or not - HELD THAT - In the present case, it is pertinent to mention here that the trial of both CBI case and ECIR lodged by Enforcement Directorate have been clubbed. Since charge sheet has already been submitted and documents have already been seized, there is no chance of tampering evidence. The petitioner was cooperative during investigation and never misused his liberty of not being arrested during investigation. It is also mentioned here that the petitioner is a permanent resident of his locality, having his family members and ancestral property. Therefore, there is no scope for his absconding, if enlarged on bail. The petitioner is a blind person. This fact has been recorded by the Supreme Court while granting bail. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 45 of the PMLA Act. It is well settled that the court is only required to look at the prima facie case and is not required to look into the test of guilt. It is required to maintain a delicate balance between the judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail before commencement of trial - In the present case, the entire transaction of the company is on website and the mode of payment is also by Bank. None of the customers were claiming any default by the company prior to freezing of the account of the company by Bank. Therefore, there is absolutely no material against the petitioner. As such, the petitioner who has no role in the alleged crime is entitled to be released on bail. This Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with conditions imposed - Accordingly, it is directed that the court in seisin over the matter shall release the Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case on stringent terms and conditions imposed - application disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Factual Matrix of the Case
2. Petitioner's Submissions
3. Court's Reasoning and Analysis

I. Factual Matrix of the Case:

1. The case arises from PMLA Case No. 47 of 2017 and ECIR No. 7 of 2009, where the petitioner is implicated for alleged offences under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

2. The FIR was lodged by Niranjan Sahu, who alleged that he deposited Rs. 10,000 in M/s. Fine Indi Sales Pvt. Ltd. (FIPL) under a Multi-Level Marketing Scheme but did not receive the products or product vouchers as promised.

3. The informant transferred money through cheques into the company account and received bonuses instead of products. FIR No. 118 of 2009 was registered against officials of FIPL for offences under IPC sections 406/420/468/471/34 and sections 4/5/6 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulations Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978.

4. The FIR was transferred to the Crime Branch, and a new FIR No. 17/09 was registered. The investigation was later handed over to CBI, which froze the company accounts and submitted a charge sheet on 14.12.2016.

II. Petitioner's Submissions:

6. The petitioner argued that the allegations in the FIR are false and fabricated, intended to harass him, and thus he is entitled to bail.

8. The petitioner claimed no prima facie involvement in the alleged crime, lacking mens rea to constitute an offence.

9-12. The petitioner explained the company's policy on selling suit lengths and issuing purchase vouchers, arguing that the business model was transparent and contractual, not fraudulent.

13. The petitioner cooperated with various investigating agencies and was never arrested by the Enforcement Directorate.

14. The petitioner cited legal precedents to argue that non-arrest during investigation entitles him to bail.

15-16. The petitioner is a blind person, a fact recorded by the Supreme Court while granting bail, and argued that the case is a civil contractual dispute, not a criminal one.

17. The petitioner emphasized the transparency of the company's transactions and the lack of material evidence against him.

19-20. The petitioner highlighted his innocence, lack of specific allegations against him, and the fact that he has been in custody for over four years without fault, invoking Section 436-A CrPC for bail.

III. Court's Reasoning and Analysis:

21. The court discussed Section 45 of the PMLA, which sets conditions for granting bail, including the Public Prosecutor's opportunity to oppose and the court's satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

22. The court noted that the petitioner was cooperative during the investigation, had a permanent residence, and there was no risk of absconding if released on bail.

23. The petitioner being a blind person was a significant factor in the court's decision to grant bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.

24. The court referenced the Delhi High Court case of Vijay Agrawal v. Directorate of Enforcement, emphasizing that bail should not be denied based on assumptions and that the twin conditions of Section 45 do not impose an absolute restraint on granting bail.

25. The court reiterated that it only needs to look at the prima facie case and maintain a balance between acquittal and conviction judgments and bail orders.

26. The court found no material evidence against the petitioner, noting the transparency of the company's transactions and the lack of customer complaints before the company accounts were frozen.

27. The court granted bail to the petitioner with conditions, including regular court appearances, no criminal activity while on bail, and no tampering with prosecution evidence.

28. Violation of any conditions would result in bail cancellation.

29. The BLAPL was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →