2024 (2) TMI 1089 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of anticipatory bail - money laundering - sale of fake Remdesivir injections to earn huge money from Covid patients - proceeds of crime - main submission of the applicant is that the applicant is not involved in the proceeds of crime, he was already granted bail and no custody has been sought by the respondent at the time of final report and therefore, the trial court ought to have granted anticipatory bail - HELD THAT - As per section 45 of the Act, 2002, the offence is cognizable and non-bailable. The bail can be granted only if two conditions are fulfilled in addition to other conditions of section 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C. The bail can be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence and he is not likely to commit such offence while on bail otherwise, he should not be released on bail. From reading the provision of section 45 of the Act, 2002, the general rule of bail not jail would not apply in such cases. The provision is otherwise as a presumption is attached that the accused is guilty and unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit such offence then bail can be granted. The role of the applicant was that he was selling fake Remdesivir injection with the connivance of Sunil Mishra. He purchased fake Remdesivir injections from Dheeraj Sajnani at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per injection. Dheeraj Sajnani is his childhood friend. Applicant didn't have the prescription of any doctor at that time. He purchased four fake Remdesivir injections as it was in great demand in society. He sold two fake Remdesivir injections to Gagan Bhaiya whose daughter was admitted in Synergy hospital, Indore at that time - This clearly establishes that he along with Sunil Mishra and others has earned money illegally through sale of fake Remdesivir injections at the cost of lives of the innocent people. The money so generated as stated above is nothing but the proceeds of crime accumulated after the commission of the Scheduled Offence as per the scheme of PMLA, 2002. Considering the money trail produced by the prosecution, which clearly proves involvement of the applicant in the present case, in which proceeds of crime is Rs. 2,89,00,000/-, this court is of the view that in view of the rigor of section 45 of the Act, 2002, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: First bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C in a case registered under the PMLA Act - Allegations of selling fake Remdesivir injections at higher prices - Request for anticipatory bail based on lack of involvement in proceeds of crime and previous grant of regular bail.

Summary:

Issue 1: Application for anticipatory bail under PMLA Act
The case involved an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C in a matter registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The applicant sought bail apprehending arrest in connection with the sale of fake Remdesivir injections at inflated prices. The court considered the provisions of section 45 of the Act, 2002, which dictate the criteria for granting bail in such cases. The court emphasized that bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit further offenses while on bail.

Issue 2: Allegations and money trail
The applicant was accused of selling fake Remdesivir injections with another individual, resulting in illegal earnings. The prosecution presented a money trail indicating proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 2,89,00,000. The court noted that the applicant, along with others, had profited unlawfully from the sale of counterfeit injections, endangering innocent lives. This money was considered proceeds of crime under the PMLA, 2002.

Issue 3: Decision and dismissal of anticipatory bail
After considering the submissions and evidence, the court concluded that due to the severity of section 45 of the Act, 2002 and the clear involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime, anticipatory bail was not warranted. The court dismissed the application, stating that the judgment cited by the applicant's counsel did not apply to the present case. The trial court's order was upheld, with instructions for the applicant to appear before the court for further proceedings.

This judgment highlights the stringent criteria for granting anticipatory bail in cases falling under the PMLA Act, emphasizing the need for strong evidence and compliance with legal provisions governing such offenses.