9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1425 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney laundering - procceds of crime - First bail application filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C - rejection of Remdesivir Injections at a higher price - offence under section 420 488 304 308 467 468 471 of IPC and 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act - HELD THAT - From reading the provision of section 45 of the Act 2002 the general rule of bail not jail would not apply in such cases. The provision is otherwise as a presumption is attached that the accused is guilty and unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit such offence then bail can be granted. The Division Bench of this court has rejected anticipatory bail considering the aforesaid provisions in the case of Kishore Meena Vs. Union of India 2023 (1) TMI 1349 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT . In the case of P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT the Apex Court observed that the power under section 438 of Cr.P.C is extra ordinary power and the same has to be exercise sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. In the case of YS Jagan Mohan Reddy 2013 (5) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT the court held that the economic offences are under the category of heinous offence and cannot be considered as ordinary offence. The applicant has committed the offence under section 3 of PMLC 2002 and he knowingly assisted Sunil Mishra and others and knowingly is a party is actually involved in the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime including its concealment possession acquisition use and projecting and claiming as untendered property which is punishable under section 4 of the Act 2002 - the respondent has produced the money trail of the present case and as per the allegation huge amount of Rs.2, 89, 00, 000/- is proceeds of crime. Considering the money trail produced by the prosecution which clearly proves involvement of the applicant in the present case in which proceeds of crime is Rs.2, 89, 00, 000/- this court is of the view that in view of the rigor of section 45 of the Act 2002 the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly the application is dismissed.
Issues:
Bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C in a case registered under PMLA Act. Analysis: 1. The case involved a bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C in a matter registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act). The applicant had previously been granted regular bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with the same offense. 2. The applicant argued that he had cooperated with the investigation, was not involved in the proceeds of crime, and no custody had been sought by the respondent during the investigation. He cited precedents where anticipatory bail had been granted in similar cases under the PMLA Act. 3. The respondent opposed the anticipatory bail application, stating that the applicant filed it to avoid appearing before the trial court. The respondent referred to a Supreme Court judgment outlining criteria for granting anticipatory bail in PMLA cases and highlighted contradictions in the case. 4. The court examined the provisions of section 45 of the PMLA Act, which make the offense cognizable and non-bailable. Bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offenses while on bail. The court referred to relevant judgments in this regard. 5. The court noted that economic offenses, including those under the PMLA Act, are considered heinous and extraordinary caution is required in granting pre-arrest bail in such cases. 6. The court detailed the applicant's involvement in selling fake Remdesivir injections and highlighted the money trail indicating proceeds of crime amounting to Rs.2,89,00,000. The court concluded that the applicant knowingly participated in illegal activities related to the proceeds of crime, leading to the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application. 7. The court emphasized that the applicant's involvement in the offense under the PMLA Act was established, and the stringent provisions of section 45 of the Act did not entitle him to anticipatory bail. The court dismissed the application and affirmed the trial court's order, directing the trial court to proceed with the case according to law upon the applicant's appearance. 8. The judgment clarified that the precedents cited by the applicant were not applicable to the present case under the PMLA Act, and the money trail and evidence presented by the prosecution supported the denial of anticipatory bail. This comprehensive analysis outlines the key legal arguments, precedents, and provisions considered by the court in denying the anticipatory bail application in a case involving offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
|
