Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2024 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 724 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTSeeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offence - partners of M/s Vikas Construction had encroached on public property by falsification of records - Whether the applicant had any direct or indirect involvement in M/s. Vikas Construction, which allegedly generated proceeds of crime - HELD THAT:- There is nothing to indicate that the applicant knowingly committed any offence as provided in Section 3 of the PMLA nor the applicant was in any way involved in the commissioning of the predicate offence and in case if the predicate offence is not made out against the applicant then proceeding under the PMLA will also fall. In the instant case, from the perusal of the complaint which has been brought on record as annexure no.2 including the supplementary complaint which has been brought on record as annexure no.9, prima faice, it reflects the involvement of the present applicant. Even though this Court is conscious of the fact that at this stage a mini trial is not be held nor the court is required to enter into the merits or the depth of the evidence to return a finding of guilt but what is required is to prima facie, consider the material available on record for the Court to satisfy itself and to enable it to reasonably form an opinion, to believe, that the applicant is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence on bail as enshrined in Section 45 of the PMLA. Considering the material available on record including the flow charts which clearly demonstrates the origin of funds and it also explains how it finds its way into the accounts of the applicant and its use by the applicant, and there is material against the applicant to link him with the movement and trail of funds to and from the two firms M/s. Vikas Construction and M/s. Aaghaaz. Considering the family antecedents of the applicant including the statement which is contained in the ECIR that the applicant initially was not co-operative rather evaded the summons and only when the lookout notice was issued and in furtherance thereof the applicant was apprehended and during custody he gave his statements but nevertheless many of the transactions could not be explained by him by taking a plea that he did not know from where the fund was coming rather whenever he wanted the funds he asked his mother and maternal uncle and grand father who would arrange the funds. This Court is unable to persuade itself to form a, prima facie, satisfaction in terms of Section 45 of the PMLA, at this stage, that the applicant is not guilty or that he may not commit an offence on bail. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the bail application is rejected.
|