TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt is satisfied that (i) There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and (ii) That the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Admittedly, Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 is not scheduled offence as prescribed under Section 2 (Y) of the PMLA but the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. fall within the ambit of the scheduled offence as specified under Part-A of the schedule - there is ample evidence available against the accused implying that he obtained an amount of Rs. 1.06 Crores by selling the REET, 2021 papers. The recovery of aforesaid amount from above eight persons further shows that the accused siphoned the proceeds of the crime to various persons. The recovery of Rs. 1.06 Crores from the above persons exemplifies the use/concealment of the proceeds of crime by the present petitioner. Whether, the predicate offence under Sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. is made out or not and whether the amount recovered from various persons is their legitimate amount or not, are the questions to be ascertained by the trial court, this Court cannot proceed into the intricaci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 222A and 222B. He also submits that the Enforcement Department can initiate the proceeding only for the offences prescribed in Part-A and Part-B of the Schedule. He also submits that the offences pertaining to Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 does not fell in the scheduled offence specified under Part-A and Part-B of the Schedule. He further submits that the offence under Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 is an independent offence and the investigation so far conducted does not indicate that accused petitioner procured the amount in predicate offence and used or concealed it. He also submits that the main allegation of purchasing the stolen paper was against the accused Udaram Bishnoi and prima facie no case under Section 420 of IPC is made out against the present petitioner. The ingredients of Section 420 of IPC are entirely missing in the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC and under Sections 4 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. There is no evidence that the accused petitioner fraudulently or dishonestly induced any person or persons with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009 (8) SCC 751 (v) Mariam Fasihuddin and Another Vs. State by Adugodi Police Station and Another. Reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 58 5. On the other hand, learned ASG vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that two FIR bearing Nos.402/2021 and 298/2021 were registered by Rajasthan Police relating to REET, 2021 paper leak case. In both the FIRs and complaints, it is alleged that REET, 2021 examination paper were leaked by an organized group receiving kickbacks and, the fiasco also lead to the murder of one Sh. Kailash Meena (driver). From the perusal of FIR and complaint it reveals that Dr. Pradeep Parashar, District Coordinator of the District Level Committee to conduct REET, 2021 engaged Shri Ram Kripal Meena as his personal assistant and gave unauthorized access to the strong room of Siksha Sankul, Jaipur, wherein the question papers of REET, 2021 were stored. The petitioner Ram Kripal Meena in the night of 24.09.2021 stole the reserve bundle of question papers from Siksha Sankul, Jaipur and handed over to Sh. Udaram Bishnoi and obtained Rs. 1.20 Crores from him. The accused petitioner circulated the question papers for substantial amount of money and provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laundering is separate standalone offence, the proceeds of crime ought to have preceded the commission of predicate offences and thereafter laundered over. Section 45 of the PMLA, which deals with the conditions for bail pending trial provides that the Court may grant bail to an accused if Court is satisfied that (i) There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and (ii) That the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 8. From the above provision, it is apparent that to enlarge the accused on bail under the PMLA, the Court has to see the grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence. 9. It is pertinent to mention that under Section 24 of PMLA, reverse burden is imposed upon the accused to disprove the allegations. 10. A perusal of Section 45 coupled with Section 24 of PMLA makes it manifest that these conditions reverse the burden on the accused to demonstrate that he is not guilty. 11. In the instant case, the accused-petitioner was charge sheeted under Sections 420 120-B of I.P.C. along with Sections 4 and 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into the intricacies of the case with regard to above issues, at the stage of bail. This Court has only to see whether there is prima facie evidence available against the accused-petitioner that he has committed the offence under Section 3 of Money Laundering Act. 16. The aforesaid facts are enough to infer that accused-petitioner was involved in stealing the paper of REET, 2021 and thereafter, selling it to the Udaram Bishnoi and Rajuram Iram. 17. At this stage, this cannot be said that accused-petitioner is not guilty of such offence. Similarly, whether the amount recovered from aforesaid eight persons is their legitimate amount or not, are the questions to ascertain by the trial court. Merely filing of the application by Sanjay Mama and Varun Tiwari for claiming the amount cannot be a ground to disbelieve the recovery of Rs. 1.06 Crores. 18. As far as applicability of proviso appended to Section 45 (1) of the PMLA is concerned, the above facts clearly show that the amount recovered from the above persons as proceeds of crime is more than Rs. 1 Crore, therefore, the case of the present petitioner does not fall within the ambit of proviso appended to Section 45 (1) of PML ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
