TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idering the request for releasing the applicants on interim bail. Once the C-Summary report has been filed and accepted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and ors. [ 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] , prima facie, there can be no offence of money laundering against the applicants. There are no force in the submission of Mr. Venegaonkar that till the period of 90 days for filing the Revision challenging the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate accepting the C-Summary report is over, the application for bail is not tenable. The question is of liberty of an individual which is valuable. The period of 90 days for filing the Revision challenging the acceptance of the C-Summary report cannot be read to mean as an automatic stay to the order accepting C-Summary report. The Revision is but a statutory remedy provided by law to challenge the impugned order (acceptance of C-Summary). The limitation prescribed for filing the Revision cannot be construed as a stay to the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The applicants are in custody for more than 2 years. The maximum punishment for the offence under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. The EOW, after conducting a thorough investigation in relation to the said FIR, has filed a C-Summary report before the Metropolitan Magistrate s 47th Court at Esplanade. The Magistrate vide his order dated 14/09/2022 accepted the same. The first informant (Ramesh Iyer) filed an affidavit of no objection for the acceptance of C-Summary report. 3. It is the contention of learned Senior Advocates for the applicants that as on date there is no predicate offence whatsoever and since the scheduled offence does not exist anymore, the PMLA case itself is not maintainable against the applicant. The applicants therefore filed the present applications for bail. It is pertinent to note that before the Special Judge (PMLA) the applicants filed Exhibit 45 and 47 applications for interim bail post the acceptance of C-Summary report. 4. The facts of the case are briefly stated hereafter. The FIR came to be registered at the instance of one Ramesh Iyer. On the basis of the said FIR dated 28/10/2020, the ECIR came to be recorded by the ED on 31/10/2022 for the purposes of investigating the offence of money laundering. The applicant (Marath) was arrested on 11/12/2020 whereupon he was reman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. The Bail Application filed by Amit came to be rejected by the trial Court. The present application is filed for bail in April 2021. However, subsequent facts are brought on record that a C-Summary was filed by the Yellow Gate Police Station on 27/12/2021. Application for interim bail of Amit and Marath at Exhibit 45 and 47 is decided by a common order. Though Amit s is a regular application for bail, I have considered the grant of interim bail to Amit on parity as a substantive challenge is laid by Marath in the connected application. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for Amit Chandole is justified in submitting that these subsequent events be taken into consideration as the question of liberty of the individual is involved. He submits that this is a substantive application for bail and in that a prayer is being made for grant of interim bail. He further submits that specific averments to this effect are made in the bail application preferred by Mr. Marath Sashidharan in this regard and the same would apply in full vigor to the applicant s case as well. It is the contention of learned Senior Advocates that there were some disputes between the complainant and the promoters of Top ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strate. 10. At this juncture, I may refer to the pertinent observations of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and ors. (supra) decided on 27/07/2022. Paragraph 33 reads thus :- 33. Tersely put, it is only such property which is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence can be regarded as proceeds of crime. The authorities under the 2002 Act cannot resort to action against any person for money-laundering on an assumption that the property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless the same is registered with the jurisdictional police or pending inquiry by way of complaint before the competent forum. For, the expression derived or obtained is indicative of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence already accomplished. Similarly, in the event the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence) against him/her, there can be no action for money-laun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs. (supra) can be made applicable. According to him, this is a case where C-Summary report has been accepted by the Metropolitan Magistrate which the ED proposes to challenge and therefore not covered by the decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and ors. (supra). He further submits that the limitation of 90 days for filing the Revision is not yet over and therefore the trial Court is justified in refusing the applications for grant of interim bail to the applicants. 13. The C-Summary has been accepted by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The ED case before the Special Judge (PMLA) is pending. I do not want to comment on the merits of the contentions so far as continuance of the PMLA case is concerned, for that is a matter to be decided in the first instance by the Special Court. I am considering the present applications strictly from the point of view as to whether, in the light of a C-Summary being accepted, the applicants could be released on interim bail. I also must bear in mind that against the order rejecting bail on merits by this Court, prior to the decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and ors. (supra), the applicant-Marath s challenge to the order refusing him bail by this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Metropolitan Magistrate accepting the C-Summary report is over, the application for bail is not tenable. The question is of liberty of an individual which is valuable. The period of 90 days for filing the Revision challenging the acceptance of the C-Summary report cannot be read to mean as an automatic stay to the order accepting C-Summary report. The Revision is but a statutory remedy provided by law to challenge the impugned order (acceptance of C-Summary). The limitation prescribed for filing the Revision cannot be construed as a stay to the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. I do not want to enter into the debate raised by learned Senior Advocates that the ED is not even an aggrieved party, for these are matters best left to the competent Court to decide as and when the Revision, if any, is filed by the ED. Factually, the ED has not filed the Revision against the acceptance of C-Summary report. In my opinion, the trial Court was not justified in observing that as a judicial discipline the Court has to wait till the end of 90 days to invoke his jurisdiction for entertaining the prayer for interim bail on the ground that the order dated 14/09/2022 accepting the C-Summar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicants-Amit Balasaheb Chandole and Marath Sashidharan be released on interim bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one or more sureties of the like amount. (iii) The applicants are permitted to furnish cash bail surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each for a period of 4 weeks in lieu of surety. (iv) The applicants shall report to the ED once in a fortnight on the 1st and 15th day of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. (v) The applicants shall not leave the jurisdiction of Greater Mumbai without express permission of the Special Judge (PMLA). (vi) The applicants shall surrender their passports with the Special Judge (PMLA), if not already surrendered. (vii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer. The Applicants should not tamper with evidence. (viii) The applicants shall attend the proceedings before the Special Judge (PMLA) without any default unless exempted. (ix) This order granting interim bail is subject to any orders that may be passed by the superior Court in challenge to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
