9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 1293 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of bail - money laundering - applicant and other accused persons in conspiracy with the office bearers of the housing societies have purchased the land which had already been sold to the members - HELD THAT - So far as the role of this applicant is concerned he got executed the sale-deed of Rs.2, 00, 00, 000/- by issuing four cheques of Rs.50 50 Lacs and out of said four cheques three were bounced and one cheque of amount of Rs.50 Lacs was transferred and that too in the forged account in the name of society. Thereafter he took loan of Rs.10 Crores by mortgaging the said land from Allahabad Bank which he invested in C-21 Mall Bhopal thus he got benefited to the tune of Rs.8.63 Crores. It is submitted that this is the only case registered against the applicant. He is ready to appear in the trial Court to get the regular bail. It is directed that in the event of arrest the applicant Keshav Nachani shall be released upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5, 00, 000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of sub-Section (2) of section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant shall also co-operate with the investigation. Application allowed.
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the applicant apprehending arrest in connection with various offenses under the IPC and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Issue 1: Previous Rejections and Current Application The applicant had previous applications rejected by the Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The present application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is filed mainly on the ground that the applicant had already spent time in jail for related crimes and had been granted bail by the Apex Court. Issue 2: Arguments of Applicant's Counsel The applicant's counsel argued that no arrest was sought by the prosecution even at the time of filing the ECIR, and only a bailable warrant was issued for the applicant's appearance. Therefore, anticipatory bail should have been granted to the petitioner by the trial court. Issue 3: Respondent's Opposition The respondent opposed the bail application, citing that the alleged offense under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is cognizable and non-bailable. Economic offenses are considered heinous and bail should only be granted if specific conditions are met, as outlined in Section 438 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. Issue 4: Role of the Applicant in the Offense The applicant was accused of entering into a conspiracy to defraud a housing cooperative society and cheat original buyers of land. The applicant fraudulently acquired land, opened unauthorized bank accounts, issued bounced cheques, and obtained a significant loan, benefiting to the tune of crores. Issue 5: Legal Precedents and Judgments The respondent cited various judgments, including those by the Apex Court, emphasizing the seriousness of economic offenses and the need for a different approach to bail in such cases. The Court must consider the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, and societal interests while granting bail. Issue 6: Decision and Conditions of Bail The Court allowed the present application and directed that the applicant shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond and surety. The applicant was instructed to cooperate with the investigation, and the order was governed by specific conditions under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the judgment, highlighting the key issues, arguments, and decisions made by the Court regarding the bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
|
