Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2022 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 207 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Bail - siphoning off huge amount to Australia - laundering of money in Australia and Dubai on the pretext of imports through banking channels and through hawala - proceeds of crime - HELD THAT:- There cannot be any dispute on the factual background of the case. The petitioner is the prime accused in large number of cases registered initially by the local police alleging offences under Sections 120B, 420, 406 and 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code besides under Sections 3 and 4 read with Sections 21 and 22 of the BUDS Act. The sum and substance of the allegations is that he as the Managing Director of the Company by name Popular Finance, which has branches all over the State and also in some of the southern States of the country, had collected huge amounts as deposits promising to pay attractive interest. He is also having money lender licence under the Kerala Money Lenders Act and is lending money on the security of gold pledged by the customers. The petitioner and his daughter, the second accused, were interrogated in numerous occasions and ultimately, on 09.08.2021, he was arrested by the respondent. Initially he moved the Special Court and by the impugned order, the application was dismissed, though his daughter was granted bail under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent filed a complaint, copy of which has been produced for perusal of the court; the petitioner was also served with a copy of the same. But according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such a complaint was hurriedly filed to deny him statutory bail, so far the Special Court has not taken cognizance of the offence. But it is a fact that complaint has already been preferred. The petitioner has a case that investigation is complete, that all the material documents collected in electronic form are with them, that the conditions imposed by this Court and other courts while granting him bail in the predicate offences are rigorous, that there is no flight risk. It may be true that the respondent has already laid a complaint. All the same, the prime witnesses in the case are the staff members of the petitioner. If he is released on bail, the possibility of him influencing and winning over them cannot be ruled out. Having regard to the gravity of offence and the huge amounts involved, the expectation of the petitioner that he would be able to revive and resurrect the business, is only just like the dream of the milkmaid. The petitioner is justified in seeking bail. The learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned Central Government Counsel have seriously opposed the application for bail. Having regard to the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, the stake involved, the gravity of offences, the fact that the petitioner has business interests in Dubai, Australia etc., it cannot be said that there is no flight risk in the case - Bail application dismissed.
|