2024 (9) TMI 1419 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of regular bail - fake forged and fictitious documents were used to obtain the holding numbers - offence under Sections 420 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code - Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - HELD THAT - When a serious offence of such a magnitude mere fact that accused was in jail for long time inconsequential besides such casual approach would undermine trust of public in integrity of Investigating Agency. Further bail is the rule and jail is an exception but competing forces need to be carefully measured before enlarging the accused on bail. Socio economic offences constituted a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail since socio economic offences have deep-rooted conspiracies affecting moral fibre of society and causing irreparable harm. Moreover investigating agency was in process of expediting the trial. So far as the bail of Dilip kumar Ghosh is concerned he was allowed bail as he was the purchaser and protected under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act as such the allowing the bail of Dilip kumar Ghosh @ Dilip Ghosh is on different footing. There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal of bail each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merit. The discretion of court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. This Court is unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that bail is the rule and the jail is an exception. In view of the above facts reasons and analysis this Court finds that no case of regular bail is made out as such the prayer for the regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. Bail application dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Petitioner's involvement in the alleged crime.
2. Petitioner's claim of no criminal antecedents.
3. Petitioner's argument on the basis of insufficient evidence.
4. Comparison with co-accused who were granted bail.
5. Reliance on various Supreme Court judgments for bail.
6. Directorate of Enforcement's counter-arguments.
7. Court's evaluation of evidence and legal precedents.
8. Consideration of socio-economic offences.
9. Final decision on the bail application.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Petitioner's Involvement in the Alleged Crime:
The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with ECIR Case No. 01 of 2023, arising from an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), linked to alleged forgery and fraudulent acquisition of property. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) alleged that the petitioner was part of a criminal conspiracy involving the creation and use of fake documents to obtain and sell properties. The petitioner was accused of helping transfer land to Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., and several forged documents were reportedly recovered from his possession.

2. Petitioner's Claim of No Criminal Antecedents:
The petitioner argued that he had no prior criminal record and was implicated based on suspicion and the confession of a co-accused. He claimed to be a government servant with no involvement in the alleged crimes. The petitioner emphasized that no direct evidence linked him to the creation or use of forged documents.

3. Petitioner's Argument on the Basis of Insufficient Evidence:
The petitioner contended that the only financial transaction linked to him was a sum of Rs. 14,80,000/- with co-accused Pradeep Bagchi, which he claimed was a personal loan between family friends. He argued that the amount involved was less than one crore, and thus, Section 45 of the PMLA should not bar his bail. He further asserted that there was no evidence of him accumulating or disbursing proceeds of crime.

4. Comparison with Co-accused Who Were Granted Bail:
The petitioner cited the bail granted to co-accused Dilip Kumar Ghosh, arguing that his case was on similar footing. He also referenced Supreme Court judgments, including Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Kalvakuntla Kavitha vs. Directorate of Enforcement, to support his bail plea, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

5. Reliance on Various Supreme Court Judgments for Bail:
The petitioner relied on several Supreme Court judgments to strengthen his bail application:
- Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement: The petitioner argued that he had been in custody for 17 months without any witnesses being examined, similar to the case of Manish Sisodia, where the Supreme Court granted bail.
- Kalvakuntla Kavitha vs. Directorate of Enforcement: The petitioner cited this case to argue that bail should be granted as a rule, especially when the accused is not involved in a serious crime.
- Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India: The petitioner referenced this case to argue that there was no prima facie evidence against him.
- Prem Prakash vs. Union of India: The petitioner argued that statements made under Section 50 of the PMLA were inadmissible, and the grounds for his arrest were not disclosed.

6. Directorate of Enforcement's Counter-arguments:
The ED argued that the petitioner was deeply involved in the conspiracy, creating and using fake documents to acquire properties fraudulently. They highlighted the petitioner's close association with influential individuals and his role in manipulating government officials. The ED emphasized that the petitioner was the main culprit in creating forged deeds and that the investigation had revealed significant proceeds of crime.

7. Court's Evaluation of Evidence and Legal Precedents:
The Court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It noted the serious allegations against the petitioner, including the creation of multiple forged deeds and the involvement in a larger conspiracy. The Court distinguished the petitioner's case from the Supreme Court judgments cited, noting that the facts and circumstances were different.

8. Consideration of Socio-economic Offences:
The Court emphasized the need for a different approach in dealing with socio-economic offences, given their deep-rooted conspiracies and impact on society. It cited the principles governing bail, including the nature of the offence, the character of the evidence, and the potential impact on society.

9. Final Decision on the Bail Application:
The Court concluded that the petitioner's case did not warrant bail, given the serious allegations and the ongoing investigation. It noted that the petitioner's arguments based on Supreme Court judgments were not applicable to the specific facts of his case. The Court rejected the petitioner's bail application, emphasizing the need to maintain public trust in the integrity of the investigation.

Conclusion:
The petitioner's bail application was rejected due to the serious nature of the allegations, the evidence presented by the ED, and the distinct facts of the case compared to the Supreme Court judgments cited. The Court emphasized the importance of a judicious approach in dealing with socio-economic offences and the need to uphold the integrity of the investigation.

← Previous Next →