9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 1237 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of bail - money laundering - scheduled offences - extortion of money to the tune of Rs. 200 Crores - twin conditions of section 45 of PMLA satisfied or not - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner who is around 69 years of age and has a medical history is in custody for last more than two years. It has been submitted that the case is still at the initial stage and the trial may take a long time. It is necessary to take into account that the detention during trial cannot be taken as punitive detention. The rule is bail and not jail. Recently in Manish Sisodia vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation Anr. 2023 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Supreme Court has held Section 436A should not be construed as a mandate that an accused should not be granted bail under the PML Act till he has suffered incarceration for the specified period. It is also a settled proposition that even in the economic offence case it is not a rule that the bail should be denied in every case. It is a also settled proposition that merely levelling the allegation of flight risk is not sufficient to deny the bail in the absence of any substantive material. The court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. Here is the case where the petitioner is 69 years of age with several ailments and is in custody for the last more than 2 years. If the case of the petitioner is seen on broad probabilities he seems to be entitled to be admitted to bail. The offence alleged against the accused is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years and may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. The case of the petitioner does not fall under Paragraph 2 of para 2 A of the Schedule. The Applicant shall furnish a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5, 00, 000/-with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/CMM/Duty MM - petitioner is admitted to bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 45 and 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. Determination of the petitioner's involvement in the predicate offence of extortion and money laundering. 3. Consideration of the petitioner's health and duration of custody. 4. Evaluation of the evidence presented by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). 5. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA and the twin conditions for bail. Summary: 1. Legality of the Bail Application: The petitioner moved a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 45 and 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, seeking bail in ECIR No. ECIR/DLZO-II/54/2021. The trial court dismissed the bail application, citing the twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA not being satisfied and the petitioner being absconding and avoiding judicial process. 2. Determination of the Petitioner's Involvement: The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) argued that the petitioner was involved in an extortion racket led by Sukesh Chandra Shekhar, who spoofed government numbers to extort money from Aditi Singh. The petitioner was alleged to have facilitated the transfer of extorted money through hawala channels. The ED presented evidence including statements under Section 50 of PMLA, bank account statements, and call data records to substantiate the petitioner's involvement. 3. Consideration of the Petitioner's Health and Duration of Custody: The petitioner, aged 69 with multiple ailments, had been in custody for over two years. The petitioner's counsel argued that the trial might take a long time, and prolonged detention could not be justified. The court noted that detention during trial should not be punitive and emphasized the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." 4. Evaluation of Evidence by ED: The ED presented evidence showing the petitioner's involvement in hawala transactions amounting to Rs. 50 Crores, with substantial amounts transferred internationally. Statements from various witnesses corroborated the petitioner's role in facilitating these transactions. However, the petitioner's counsel argued that there was no direct link or nexus with the main accused or the proceeds of crime. 5. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA: The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, emphasizing that the court at the bail stage is not required to record a positive finding of guilt but to evaluate broad probabilities. The court also considered the petitioner's health, age, and prolonged custody, and noted that the petitioner was not a flight risk and had no criminal antecedents. Conclusion: The court granted bail to the petitioner, considering the totality of the circumstances, including the petitioner's age, health, and prolonged custody. The bail was granted subject to several conditions, including furnishing a personal bail bond, regular court appearances, not leaving NCR or India without permission, and not influencing witnesses. The application was disposed of with these conditions.
|
