2024 (2) TMI 730 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - predicate offence - seeking grant of regular bail for second time - earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merits - main ground for renewal of the bail application by the petitioner is that after earlier rejection, bail applications of the similarly situated co-accused persons have been allowed by Hon ble the Supreme Court as well as by this Court - HELD THAT - It is apparent that case of this Petitioner cannot be equated with that of coaccused, Bachu Yadav or co-accused, Krishna Kumar Saha who have been granted bail. Petitioner is the main accused and Bachhu Yadav was his henchman as the per the prosecution case. Accused, Krishna Kumar Saha was not named in the earlier two prosecution complaints and his name came up in the 3rd supplementary prosecution complaint submitted by the ED. Petitioner being the political representative of the then Chief Minister enjoys political and administrative connection. Matter involves crime proceed being generated by large scale illegal mining activity being carried out, and the Petitioner appears to be the king pin. There are prima facie materials to suggest his pivotal role in laundering of the crime proceed generated in illegal mining activity. Trial is at its nascent stage with charge being framed on 03.03.2023 and out of 42 only 10 witnesses having been examined. Petitioner s health condition is monitored by the Jail doctors and was referred to and treated in higher centre at Delhi. There are no change of circumstance to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail and accordingly, the same is again rejected.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves a bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) for the petitioner, who is the main accused in ECIR Case No.04 of 2022. The issues include renewal of bail application, comparison with bail granted to co-accused, the progress of the trial, the petitioner's health condition, and the legal provisions related to bail and speedy trial.

Renewal of Bail Application:
The petitioner renewed the bail application citing the grant of bail to similarly situated co-accused by the Supreme Court and this Court. The petitioner argued that charge has been framed and witnesses examined, indicating progress in the case. The petitioner also highlighted the need for simultaneous trial of predicate offence and money laundering under PMLA to avoid anomalous results on acquittal.

Legal Arguments for Bail:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner has been in custody for a specific period, and reliance was placed on a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that detention during trial is not equivalent to punishment. The counsel also contended that the charge-sheet did not disclose fresh material against the petitioner and questioned the link between the petitioner and other predicate offences.

Health Condition of the Petitioner:
The petitioner's health condition, including chronic Pancreatic disease, hypertension, and Type-2 Diabetes, was presented as a ground for bail. The petitioner received treatment at Fortis Escorts Hospital for these medical issues.

Opposition by Enforcement Directorate (ED):
The ASGI for the ED opposed the bail application, emphasizing the petitioner's role as the main accused and distinguishing him from other co-accused. The ED argued against equating the petitioner's case with that of co-accused and disputed the relevance of certain legal precedents cited by the petitioner.

Court's Decision:
After considering the arguments from both sides, the Court rejected the bail application, noting that the petitioner's case differs from that of co-accused who were granted bail. The Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial process, citing legal provisions related to speedy trial under Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The judgment emphasized the importance of case-specific considerations in granting relief under this provision and highlighted the need for expeditious completion of the trial.