Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2022 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1410 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - misappropriation of the funds of the Bank and cheating the Bank - shell entities - requirement of twin conditions of Section 45 of the Act of 2002 or not - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case P.Chidambaram’s case [2019 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT], held that the powers of bail in a economic offence have to be exercised sparingly as such offences are of a different class and affect the economic fabric of the society. The three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra's case [2005 (4) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT] discussed the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, wherein the provisions for granting of bail are similar. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting word ‘guilty’ held that such findings regarding guilty or otherwise have to be recorded for the purpose of arriving at an objective finding on the basis of material on record for the grant of bail and for not any other purpose. The intention of the legislature in introducing the criteria of ‘reasonable grounds for believing’ that a person is ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ of such an offence has to be construed with the attending facts and circumstances of a particular case. Since the bail is normally urged during the course of investigation, the Court has to come to a prima facie conclusion whether or not to grant bail on the basis of the material provided by the investigating agency - The twin conditions under section 45 are regulatory and not to deny bail to an accused. No specific conditions can be laid down to apply for grant of bail and each case has to be determined based on its peculiar facts. In the present case petitioner was taken into police custody for 8 days and the agency has yet to collect some more information and evidence, before finalizing and filing the complaint as evident from the counter. CBI, though investigated the alleged shell companies of petitioner has not arrayed petitioner as accused. Apparently the agency does not have material to file a complaint against accused at this juncture and it depends upon the other evidence and facts yet to be collected. Section 19(1) requires reasonable satisfaction/belief of the agency on the basis of material collected that the accused is guilty of the offence before effecting arrest and not mere assertion. Not having enough material would imply that the condition of ‘reasonable belief on the available material’ under section 19 is not met. It is not out of place to mention that all investigations do not end in filing complaints or charge sheets to prosecute an accused and the conviction rates in such cases are abysmally low. The petitioner is entitled to be released on bail for (i) arrest of the petitioner is not in compliance of the condition under section 19(1) of having material in possession to summarily conclude guilt (ii) Though role of Petitioner was investigated by CBI, the Petitioner not being arrayed as accused in the CBI case after concluding investigation and filing charge sheet - the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner/A1 is granted bail subject to the conditions fulfilled.
|