2020 (2) TMI 1027 - HC - Money Laundering

Enlargement of applicant in the event of her arrest - Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - HELD THAT - It is revealed that the respondent investigating agency has registered the case against the applicant. In connection with the said case summons under Section 50 of the PMLA came to be issued to the applicant thrice. It is not in dispute that applicant did not remain present before the investigating agency and thereby not cooperated with the said agency. From the material placed on record it is further revealed that against the husband of the applicant viz. Sanjay Gupta and others FIR being C.R.No.I3 of 2015 is registered with CID Crime Gandhinagar. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the investigating agency has issued the summons under Section 50 of the PMLA to the applicant applicant was required to remain present before the investigating agency and to cooperate with them. However she has failed to remain present though summons were issued thrice. The presence of the applicant is required before the investigating officer to explain various transactions came across during the investigation for the purpose of ongoing investigation under PMLA. Hence custodial interrogation of the applicant is required - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
2. Non-compliance with summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA.
3. Allegations of money laundering against the applicant.
4. Involvement of the applicant in various companies and receipt of funds.
5. Need for custodial interrogation of the applicant.

Analysis:
1. The applicant filed an application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The applicant was not named as an accused in the FIR, but summons were issued under Section 50 of the PMLA. The respondent agency alleged non-compliance with the summonses, leading to the need for the applicant's custodial interrogation.

2. The respondent agency issued summons to the applicant under Section 50 of the PMLA multiple times, but the applicant failed to appear before the investigating agency, indicating non-cooperation. The failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the summons was highlighted as a crucial point by the Assistant Solicitor General opposing the application.

3. Allegations of money laundering were leveled against the applicant, including involvement in transactions of various companies where the applicant held directorship. Specific instances of fund transfers and the applicant's role as a director in Purple Events Ltd were highlighted, indicating a need for further investigation to trace the proceeds of crime.

4. The applicant's involvement in various companies, receipt of funds, and control stakeholder status were emphasized by the respondent agency. The applicant's resignation from directorship positions before certain transactions were scrutinized raised questions about indirect involvement and control over the companies receiving funds from alleged proceeds of crime.

5. The court considered the need for custodial interrogation of the applicant to explain transactions unearthed during the investigation under the PMLA. Despite arguments for anticipatory bail, the court concluded that the applicant's presence before the investigating officer was necessary for ongoing investigations, leading to the dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail.