9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 375 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - involvement in fraudulent sale/purchase of land - predicate offence or not - whether the parameter as fixed under Section 451(i)(ii) of the PML Act 2002 is being fulfilled in order to reach to the conclusion that it is a fit case where regular bail is to be granted or not? - HELD THAT - It is evident from the prosecution complaint that on 16.04.2024 searches were conducted at the residential premises of the present applicant and from scrutiny of the said documents and diaries revealed cash transactions with respect to several landed properties which are nonsaleable properties. During investigation the accused person Antu Tirkey had admitted his dealings with respect to non-saleable landed properties at Ranchi by which he has acquired huge amount of money. The same is also evident from the cash entries in the diary. Further the present applicant in his statement dated 22.04.2024 has also admitted the aforesaid dealing and has further stated to have received Rs. 70 to 80 lakhs till date. It has further come in the investigation that in addition to this the present applicant acquired around 42 decimals of land from Mitku Pahan (bhuinhari property) falling under Khata no. 234 Plot no. 1055 for an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs. Out of this he sold around 6 decimals of land of Saddam Hussain for and amount of Rs. 18.5 lakhs and rest of the land is sold to Krishna Munda for an amount of Rs. 55 lakhs - Further as per the prosecution complaint where CDR analysis of mobile phones of the accused has been mentioned the petitioner was in touch with co-accused Afsar Ali and as per para 9.45 of the supplementary prosecution complaint the bank account scrutiny reveals that petitioner had transaction with co-accused Md. Saddam Hussain - the involvement of present petitioner in alleged crime cannot be lightly brushed out. To constitute any property as proceeds of crime it must be derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The explanation clarifies that the proceeds of crime include property not only derived or obtained from scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. Clause (u) also clarifies that even the value of any such property will also be the proceeds of crime - Further it is settled proposition of law that if a person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime in that case he can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. Therefore it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence. Thus on the basis of the discussion made the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration no offence will be said to be committed so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 4 of the P.M.L. Act 2002 is totally misplaced in the light of accusation as mentioned in prosecution complaint - Further contention has been raised that a prosecution complaint against the petitioner has already been filed and thus investigation is complete and therefore no purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner in judicial custody - Further it is settled proposition of law that the filing of charge-sheet is not a circumstance that tilts the scales in favour of the accused for grant of bail and needless to say filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. This Court thinks it fit to revisit the scope of section 45 of the PML Act 2002. As discussed in preceding paragraphs that Section 45 of the PMLA Act 2002 provides twin test. First reason to believe is to be there for the purpose of reaching to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case and second condition is that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Principles of parity - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Apex Court in Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement 2023 (11) TMI 904 - SUPREME COURT wherein at paragraph-18 it has been held that parity is not the law and while applying the principle of parity the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration - It has further been held in the paragraph 19 of the said judgment that the principle of parity is to be applied in the matter of bail but equally it has been laid down therein that there cannot be any negative equality meaning thereby that if a co-accused person has been granted bail without consideration of the factual aspect or on the ground said to be not proper then merely because the co-accused person has been directed to be released on bail the same will not attract the principle of parity on the principle that Article 14 envisages positive equality and not negative equality. Thus applying the principle of parity this Court is of the view as per the judgment rendered by the Hon ble Apex Court rendered in Tarun Kumar that the benefit of parity is to be given if the facts/involvement of the petitioner is identical to the persons with whom parity is being claimed - This Court on the basis of the discussion of the involvement of the petitioner vis- -vis the other co-accused person is of the view that the case of the petitioner is quite distinguishable to that of the case of the co- accused/petitioner of B.A no.4892 of 2024 therefore is of the view that it is not a fit case for applying the issue of parity herein. Conclusion - Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that the petitioner has miserably failed to satisfy this Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the alleged offences. On the contrary there is sufficient material collected by the respondent-ED to show that he is prima facie guilty of the alleged offences. Since the petitioner has failed to make out a case to exercise the power to grant bail and the parameters necessary to be considered for adjudication of bail this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail. This Court is of the view that it is not a case where the prayer for bail is to be granted as such the instant application stands dismissed.
1. Issues Presented and Considered
The primary issue considered in this judgment is whether the petitioner, Anand Tirkey @ Antu Tirkey, should be granted bail in connection with charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The specific legal questions include:
2. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The PMLA, 2002, aims to prevent money laundering and provide for confiscation of property derived from or involved in money laundering. Section 3 defines the offence of money laundering, and Section 4 prescribes the punishment. Section 45 sets stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The court also referenced precedents such as Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., which emphasize the independent nature of the offence of money laundering. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The court interpreted that the offence of money laundering is independent of the predicate offence, meaning that a person can be prosecuted under PMLA without being accused of the predicate offence. The court emphasized that money laundering involves processes such as concealment, possession, acquisition, or use of proceeds of crime, and projecting it as untainted property. The court also noted that the burden of proof lies on the accused to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved in money laundering. Key Evidence and Findings The court found substantial evidence against the petitioner, including his involvement in illegal land transactions and cash dealings related to Bhuinhari properties, which are non-saleable without specific permission. The prosecution presented documents and statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, which implicated the petitioner in money laundering activities. Application of Law to Facts The court applied the provisions of the PMLA and relevant precedents to the facts of the case, concluding that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of money laundering. The court noted that the petitioner was involved in acquiring and selling non-saleable properties, which constituted proceeds of crime under the PMLA. Treatment of Competing Arguments The petitioner argued that he was not involved in the predicate offence and should not be held liable under PMLA. He also claimed parity with a co-accused who was granted bail. The court rejected these arguments, stating that the offence of money laundering is independent and that the principle of parity does not apply as the facts of the petitioner's case differ significantly from that of the co-accused. Conclusions The court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he is not guilty of the alleged offences and that there are reasonable grounds to believe he is involved in money laundering. The court also found that the conditions for granting bail under Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied. 3. Significant Holdings Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning "The offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence." Core Principles Established The judgment reinforces that money laundering is an independent offence and does not require the accused to be charged with the predicate offence. It also emphasizes the stringent conditions under Section 45 for granting bail in money laundering cases. Final Determinations on Each Issue The court determined that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of money laundering and that the conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA are not met. The application for bail was dismissed, with the court emphasizing the seriousness of economic offences and the need for a different approach in granting bail in such cases.
|
