Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2020 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 20 - HC - Money LaunderingBail application - money laundering - Section 439, read with Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - period of detention of an under trial prisoner - whether any delay has been caused by the said accused person and the offence is not punishable with death? - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel has adverted to the provision of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure giving emphasis to the proviso clause that the Court may after hearing the public prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties; provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law. Therefore, for the reasons to be noted the Court is well empowered to order continued detention in jail instead of releasing him on personal bond or on surety bond, however in no case the petitioner can be continued with the detention beyond the period of seven years. Whether delay in trial was caused by the petitioner and other accused person? - HELD THAT:- It is evident from the charge sheet that the petitioner is responsible for the acts and affairs of the company as the Chairman of Rose Valley Group of Company who planned and designed the illegal schemes to mobilize deposits from the innocent investors including deposits under the scheme of issue of debenture with false assurance of high return and thereby generated huge sums and diverted and thereby laundered the money for different purposes by befooling the common public and has committed offence under Section 3 read with Section 70(1) and (2) of PMLA Act punishable under Section 4 of the Act. Thus, the petitioner is involved in a grave economic crime having serious social ramification and in the larger interest of the society - the learned trial Judge has rightly turned down his prayer for release under the provision of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by taking in view the proviso clauses for his continued detention till the conclusion of the trial. The prayer for release of the petitioner Gautam Kundu is refused considering the enormity of the crime and his involvement in many other cases relating to Rose Valley cheat fund scam case - Application dismissed.
|