9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 573 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Regulat Bail - Money Laundering - illegal extortion on Coal Transportation - twin conditions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA) satisfied or not - HELD THAT - This Court has already rejected the bail application of other co-accused persons who are also senior Government Officers. This Court while rejecting their bail application has recorded prima facie involvement of the Government servants therefore considering the prima facie involvement of the applicant as also the role played by the applicant the present bail application deserves to be rejected. Even otherwise the law has been well settled by Hon ble the Supreme Court in Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Aditya Tripathi 2023 (5) TMI 527 - SUPREME COURT that while considering the bail application the Court is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the investigating agency meticulously nonetheless the Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation the nature of evidence collected in support thereof the severity of the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences the character of the accused the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial reasonable apprehension of the witness being tempered with the large interest of the public/state etc. From bare perusal of ECIR with regard to the allegations leveled against the present applicant it is quite vivid that the present applicant has played a specific role in commission of offence. Investigation revealed that the applicant had helped Surykant Tiwari in the offence. The ECIR would further reflect that the present applicant has knowingly and willingly assisted the extortion syndicate in committing the predicate crime of extortion and also in generation of proceeds of crime - the applicant is unable to fulfill the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA 2002. Further contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is government servant therefore before prosecuting the applicant under the PMLA 2002 sanction to prosecute as per Section 218 of the BNSS is necessary as such the prosecution is illegal therefore the applicant is entitled to be released on bail is being considered by this Court - In the present case prima facie the applicant is involved in crime in question which is not relates to public duty therefore sanction to prosecute under Section 218 BNSS is not required. Accordingly the submission made by counsel for the applicant that without sanction prosecution has been initiated therefore the prosecution deserves to be quashed and he may be released on bail is rejected. Conclusion - i) The stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA must be met for bail to be granted in cases of money laundering the applicant failed to meet these conditions given the evidence of his involvement in the extortion scheme. ii) It is also held that no sanction for prosecution is required when the alleged acts are outside the scope of official duties thereby rejecting the applicant s argument for bail based on the lack of sanction under Section 218 of the BNSS. The bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nayay Suraksha Sanhita 2023 is liable to be and is hereby rejected.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered in this judgment is whether the applicant fulfills the twin conditions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) for the grant of bail. Additionally, the court considered whether the lack of sanction for prosecution under Section 218 of the Bhartiya Nayay Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) affects the legality of the proceedings against the applicant. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Fulfillment of Twin Conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 45 of the PMLA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring that the Public Prosecutor be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application and that the court be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offense and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The court referenced several precedents, including judgments from the Supreme Court, to outline the rigorous application of these conditions in economic offenses. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court emphasized the seriousness of the offense and the applicant's role in facilitating the extortion syndicate. It noted that the applicant, as an Assistant Mining Officer, was instrumental in the illegal coal levy scheme, which involved substantial proceeds of crime. The court found that the applicant had not met the burden of proving that he was not guilty of the alleged offenses, as required by Section 45 of the PMLA. Key evidence and findings: The court highlighted the evidence collected by the Enforcement Directorate, including statements from Rahul Singh, which indicated the applicant's involvement in the extortion scheme. The evidence suggested that the applicant facilitated the clearance of Delivery Orders (DOs) only after receiving confirmation of illegal payments. Application of law to facts: The court applied the stringent bail conditions of Section 45, finding that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated his non-involvement in the offense. The court considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the severity of potential punishment, and the applicant's role in the crime. Treatment of competing arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the proceedings were an abuse of process and that the applicant was not named in the initial FIR. However, the court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing the ongoing investigation and the evidence of the applicant's involvement in money laundering. Conclusions: The court concluded that the applicant failed to meet the requirements of Section 45, and thus, the bail application was denied. 2. Requirement of Sanction for Prosecution under Section 218 of BNSS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The applicant argued that as a government servant, sanction for prosecution was necessary under Section 218 of the BNSS. The court examined the necessity of sanction in cases involving acts outside the scope of official duty. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court reasoned that sanction for prosecution is not required when the alleged acts are not related to the performance of official duties. It found that the applicant's involvement in the extortion scheme was not an act done in the discharge of official duty. Key evidence and findings: The court noted that the evidence pointed to the applicant's active participation in the extortion scheme, which was unrelated to his official responsibilities. Application of law to facts: The court applied the principle that no sanction is required for acts outside the scope of official duty, concluding that the prosecution was legally valid without such sanction. Treatment of competing arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the lack of sanction rendered the prosecution illegal. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the applicant's actions were not protected by the requirement for sanction. Conclusions: The court concluded that the lack of sanction did not invalidate the prosecution, and the applicant was not entitled to bail on this ground. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The court established that the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA must be met for bail to be granted in cases of money laundering. It emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the offense, the evidence of involvement, and the potential for influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The court held that the applicant failed to meet these conditions, given the evidence of his involvement in the extortion scheme. The court also held that no sanction for prosecution is required when the alleged acts are outside the scope of official duties, thereby rejecting the applicant's argument for bail based on the lack of sanction under Section 218 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the bail application was rejected, and the court's observations were deemed not to influence the ongoing trial proceedings.
|
