2024 (1) TMI 9 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - principles of parity - illegal earning of black money and purchased movable and immovable property in the name of his family members - HELD THAT - A woman can take benefit of the first proviso, where she can be released when the money laundering is of lesser amount. Since the applicant is main accused, the principle of parity is not applicable. On careful considerations to the precedents cited by learned Senior counsel for the applicant, but in the considered view of this Court, the same are inapposite to the factual scenario of this case. On perusal of the law laid down in the case of MAHDOOM BAVA VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 (3) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT is concerned, the custodial interrogation was not required by CBI in that cases, hence due to different facts of the case, applicant of this case cannot be benefitted by the aforesaid case. So far as the judgements passed in the cases of PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL ANR. VERSUS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE THROUGH I.O. 2023 (2) TMI 1218 - SC ORDER and RAGHVENDRA SINGH TOMAR APPELLANT VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 (5) TMI 1282 - SC ORDER , the facts of those cases are not applicable here, because in the case at hand, it is remonstrated by learned Dy. Solicitor General that the investigation pertains to applicant is still going on as he is still dealing with proceeds of crime. hence, in light of Section 45 of PMLA, applicant cannot be benefited for grant of anticipatory bail. Since the matter is related to the economic offences containing property worth Rs. 1,55,87,861/-, the applicant cannot be released under the provisions of anticipatory bail and therefore, anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed .

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the first bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in a case related to allegations under Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue 1 - Allegations and Anticipatory Bail:
The applicant is accused of illegally earning black money and purchasing property beyond his known income, leading to allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The applicant, through senior counsel, argues for anticipatory bail citing the absence of arrest till date and reliance on previous judgments for parity and completion of investigation without the need for arrest.

Issue 2 - Opposition to Bail Application:
The Deputy Solicitor General representing the Directorate of Enforcement opposes the bail application, emphasizing the applicant's inability to explain the sources of his income, which is crucial in such offenses, and argues against granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances.

Issue 3 - Legal Provisions and Precedents:
The court considers Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which states conditions for release on bail, emphasizing the need for the Public Prosecutor's opposition and reasonable grounds for believing in innocence. The court distinguishes the present case from previous judgments cited by the applicant's counsel, highlighting the main accused status, ongoing investigation, and the nature of economic offenses.

Issue 4 - Precedents and Economic Offenses:
The court refers to legal precedents emphasizing the sparing exercise of power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C in economic offenses, where the economic fabric of society is impacted. Citing specific cases, the court concludes that due to the economic nature of the offenses and the significant property involved, the applicant cannot be granted anticipatory bail under the current circumstances.

Conclusion:
Considering the economic nature of the offenses, the property value involved, and the ongoing investigation, the court dismisses the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The judgment aligns with the principles outlined in legal precedents regarding economic offenses and the cautious approach required in granting anticipatory bail in such cases.