2023 (7) TMI 585 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - possession of tainted money transfer of same to others based on telephonic instructions of her son accused Suryakant Tiwari - applicability of rigor of twin conditions as prescribed under Section 45 of the Act of 2022 on account being an infirm woman - HELD THAT - From the allegations contained in the complaint and statements recorded under Section 50 (2) of the Act of 2002 it is clear that applicant was in possession of tainted money she has transferred the same to others based on telephonic instructions of her son accused Suryakant Tiwari. For considering application for grant of bail fulfilment of twin conditions under Section 45 (1) (i) (ii) of the Act of 2002 is must. The material collected and available in the complaint prima facie indicates involvement of applicant in crime in question. Twin conditions also applies to anticipatory bail application. Except submission that applicant is an infirm woman no material has been placed on record showing that applicant is suffering from any old age disease or is seriously sick. Offence under the Act of 2002 is an offence under the special Act therefore normal consideration for grant of bail under Section 438 or 439 CrPC may not be only consideration for grant of bail under Section 439 or 438 of CrPC and therefore unless applicant comes out of rigor of twin conditions as prescribed under Section 45 of the Act of 2022 he/she may not be entitled for benefit of bail. In the case of Vijay Madanlal 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Supreme Court observed the expression and occurring in Section 3 has to be construed as or to give full play to the said provision so as to include every process or activity indulged into by anyone. Projecting or claiming the property as untainted property would constitute an offence of money-laundering on its own being an independent process or activity. The order passed in case of M. NAGARAJAN ANR. VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ORS. 2023 (1) TMI 1268 - SC ORDER which was relied upon by learned counsel for applicant is of no help to the applicant because facts of that case are entirely different from the facts of present case. In that case closure report was filed which was later accepted by the Magistrate - In this case there is no closure with respect to offence under Section 384 of IPC. In fact police of Police Station Kadugodi Whitefield Banglore taking note of the place of incident alleged forwarded the complaint to police of Chhattisgarh through proper channel and further taking note of the fact that in the complaint there is categorical mention of applicant that she has not co-operated during investigation by non-applicant Department. This is not a fit case to extend benefit of Section 438 of CrPC to applicant - this anticipatory bail application is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves an application under Section 438 of CrPC for anticipatory bail in connection with a crime registered under Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Details of the Judgment:

1. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, a 69-year-old lady, was involved in money laundering activities through M/s Jay Ambey Group. The applicant's counsel argued that she had no role in the business and was unfairly implicated due to her relationship with the main accused. The counsel cited provisions allowing bail for sick or infirm women under the Act of 2002.

2. The applicant's counsel contended that the complaint filed by the Income Tax Department did not result in a charge sheet under the scheduled offense, questioning the continuation of the case under the Act of 2002. The counsel also highlighted the lack of evidence for the offense under Section 384 of IPC and emphasized the absence of custodial interrogation necessity.

3. The non-applicant's counsel presented incriminating materials collected during the investigation, indicating the active involvement of the applicant in the money laundering scheme. The counsel argued that the applicant was in possession of tainted money and was actively transferring it, supported by statements of co-accused and call chats. The counsel emphasized the seriousness of the crime and the need to fulfill the bail conditions under the Act of 2002.

4. The Court observed that the police had submitted a charge sheet under Section 384 of IPC, connecting the offense to the territorial jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh. The Court noted that the applicant was prima facie involved in possessing and transferring tainted money, falling under the definition of money laundering as per Section 3 of the Act of 2002.

5. The Court emphasized that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Act of 2002 must be met for grant of bail, and the material available prima facie indicated the applicant's involvement in the crime. The Court highlighted that being an infirm woman was not sufficient grounds for bail and that the special nature of the offense required strict adherence to bail conditions.

6. Referring to relevant case law, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, stating that the applicant did not meet the criteria for bail under Section 438 of CrPC. The Court found that the applicant's involvement in money laundering activities was established based on the evidence presented during the investigation.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the Court's reasoning for rejecting the anticipatory bail application.