9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ranjan, unknown office bearers of West Bengal Board of Primary Education and others for the alleged offences committed by unknown office bearers of West Bengal Board of Primary Education in conducting the selection process of Assistant teachers. As sections 7, 7A & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 fall under Paragraph 8 part 'A' of the schedule to the PMLA, 2002 and Sections 120B, 420, 467 & 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 1988 fall under Paragraph 1 part 'A' of the schedule to the PMLA, 2002 are the Scheduled Offence in terms of Section 2(1) (y) of PMLA, 2002, enquiries were initiated under PMLA, 2002 against the accused persons and their associates after recording ECIR /KLZOII/19/2022 dated 24.06.2022 against Chandan Mondal @ Ranjan, unknown office bearers of West Bengal Board of Primary Education and others. It was alleged that the various orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta make it clear that the entire process of recruitment of assistant primary teachers were done illegally and for extraneous considerations. The role of all the influential persons were put under scrutiny by the Hon'ble High Court and accordingly a SIT of CBI was co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the offence of money laundering, by indulging in criminal conspiracy for illegally giving jobs for the post of Asst teachers in primary schools against bribe amount and generating huge proceeds of crime and for having knowingly indulged, assisted, involved and being a party in the process and activity connected to the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting as well as claiming the said proceeds of crime as untainted property deriving illegal monetary gains. The accused Shri Partha Chatterjee and Ms. Arpita Mukherjee were arrested for the offence of Money Laundering on 23.07.022 on reasons to believe that they were involved in the offence of Money Laundering. Shri Partha Chatterjee and Ms. Arpita Mukherjee were arrested on 23.07.2022 from their residential premises situated at 9/4A, Khanpur Road, Naktala, Kolkata-700047 and Diamond City South, Tower-2, Flat-1, 58 MG Road, Karunamoyee, Tollygunge, Kolkata-41 respectively under section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 after observing all legal safeguards. Details of Movable property seized: Sl. No. Description of moveable property Value (in Rs.) 1. Gold Jewellery recovered and seized from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 11 Details of immovable property worth Rs.40,33,48,082/- (including BCM International School). In the prosecution complaint a brief summary of the specific role of the petitioner was assigned, which is set out as follows: S.No Name of the Accused Role in the case 1. Shri Partha Chatterjee (A- 1) D.O.B -06.10.1952, son of Late Shri Bijay Krishna Chatterjee, R/o 9/4A, Khanpur Road, Naktala, Kolkata- 700047, A company namely M/s Ananta Texfab Pvt. Ltd. controlled by Shri Partha Chatterjee and found closely linked with the family members of the accused Shri Partha Chatterjee was registered at that very premises from where the haul of huge cash of Rs. 27.90 crores and gold amounting to Rs. 4.31 crores was seized. Shri Partha Chatterjee had made dummy directors in the said company under his control namely M/s Ananta Texfab Pvt Ltd., M/s Symbiosis Merchants Pvt. Ltd., M/s Viewmore Highrise Pvt. Ltd. etc. Under priviledged people having meagre means of living were exploited and made directors by Shri Partha Chatterjee and thereafter made to sign on the papers of the company without their consent or knowledge and even without showing them any contents of the documents. The said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of companies and subsequently purchasing immovable properties in the name of companies. These companies were also under the control of Shri partha Chatterjee and his close associate Ms Arpita Mukherjee. Investigation revealed that though Partha Chatterjee was not a director in the companies namely M/s Ananta Texfab Pvt. Ltd., M/s Symbiosis Merchants Pvt. Ltd., M/s Viewmore Highrise Pvt. Ltd., M/s Echhay Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sentry Engineering Pvt. Ltd. at the time of contravention of the provisions of PMLA, 2002 but he was incharge and responsible for the day to day affairs and-conduct of the business of the said companies. He was in de-facto control of the companies as is evident from the statement of Ms Arpita Mukherjee, Shri Snehamoy Dutta, Shri Manoj Kumar Kathotia, Shri Kamal Singh Bhutoria, Shri Mrinmoy Malakar, Shri Ranesh Kumar Singh, Shri Debasis Debnath, Shri Antim Goswami, Shri Biswajit Roy and Ashok Panja. Shri Partha Chatterjee had appointed dummy persons as directors of the companies only on paper whereas he was actually the brain behind not only in day to day affairs of the company but in all acts concerning the contravention of PMLA, 2002. The 31 Nos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of proceeds of crime with the assistance of other accused persons and entities. Thus, it has committed the offence of Money Laundering as defined under section 3 read with section 70 of PMLA, 2002 and is, therefore, liable to be punished under section 4 of PMLA, 2002. In addition to that, Explanation to Section 3 of PMLA also provides that "the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever". As revealed from the facts of the case, it continued to be involved in processes and activities connected with said proceeds of crime and continued to be holding and projecting the said proceeds of crime as untainted money. In view of the facts and aforesaid legal explanation, it is noticed that it continued to commit offence of money laundering as per Section 3 of PMLA and therefore liable to be punished under Section 4 of PMLA for such continuing activity. 4. M/s Ananta Texfab Pvt. Ltd. (A-4) This is a company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever". As revealed from the facts of the case, it continued to be involved in processes and activities connected with said proceeds of crime and continued to be holding and projecting the said proceeds of crime as untainted money. In view of the facts and aforesaid legal explanation, it is noticed that it continued to commit offence of money laundering as per Section 3 of PMLA and therefore liable to be punished under Section 4 of PMLA for such continuing activity. 6. M/s Sentry Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (A-6) M/s Sentry engineering Pvt. Ltd. was formed for the purpose of laundering the funds by way of depositing the cash in the accounts maintained in the name of Companies and subsequently purchasing immovable properties in the name of companies. This company was also under the control of Shri partha Chatterjee and his close associate Ms Arpita Mukhejee. This corporate entity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case, it continued to be involved in processes and activities connected with said proceeds of crime and continued to be holding and projecting the said proceeds of crime as untainted money. In view of the facts and aforesaid legal explanation, it is noticed that it continued to commit offence of money laundering as per Section 3 of PMLA and therefore liable to be punished under Section 4 of PMLA for such continuing activity. 8. M/s APA Utility Services (A8) This is a partnership firm formed on 01.11.2011 with Shri Partha Chatterjee and Ms. Arpita Mukherjee as equal partners and powers to act on behalf of the other. There was no business activity in this firm and it was solely made with the purpose of buying properties from the proceeds derived out of the criminal activities related to scheduled offences. Immovable property were purchased in cash in the name of this partnership firm. Thus entity was also used in the acquisition, use, possession, and concealment of proceeds of crime. Thus, it has committed the offence of Money Laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA and is, therefore, liable to be punished under section 4 of PMLA, 2002. In add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the petitioner that the documents recovered and seized from the premises of the petitioner on 22.07.2022 relate to copies of deeds of sale purchased by Ms. Arpita Mukherjee, M/s. Echhay Entertainment Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Sentry Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The recoveries do not relate to the present petitioner. Referring to some of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, learned senior advocate fortifies his argument by submitting that in question no.12 of the statement dated 02.08.2022 the said Ms. Arpita Mukherjee stated that the properties were either in her name or in the name of her company and all the properties were in her possession. It was explained that since she knew the petitioner so the said documents/photocopies were kept in the premises of the petitioner. So far as the other documents which are being recovered, the same do not relate to R.C. Case No.6 and relates to appointment of Group 'D' staff and in respect of upper primary teachers. Reliance upon the documents were only to impress upon the Court that the present petitioner is involved in the commission of offence arising out of R.C. Case No.6 and the proceeds of crime were generated through commission of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kherjee which was recorded under section 50 of the PMLA in respect of the cash, jewellery and the properties, ld. Advocate for the petitioner emphasizes that the statement of a co-accused do not add any importance to the evidence, which can be a sole testimony for implicating the petitioner. There were other statements of said Arpita Mukherjee, which do exonerate the petitioner. However, the prosecution has not emphasized on the same and only highlighted on a single piece of such statement to establish its case of proceeds of crime, which dilutes the case against the present petitioner as the same is based on surmises and conjectures. Ld. Senior advocate for the petitioner has also dealt with the properties in the name of M/s. APA Utility Services and rebutted the same by addressing the court that the property is located at 348/52, NSC Bose Road, PSJadavpur, Kolkata-700047, which is in the name of one Rajib Dey and the said Rajib Dey has not been examined as a witness in this case. So far as the infusion of cash in BCM International School is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the statement of Krishna Chandra Adhikary and Kalyanmoy Bhattacharya to assert that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact of the matter is that for an offence where the maximum sentence could be punishable with imprisonment for seven years, the appellant has undergone custody for about a year. 7. It further appears that the investigation is still pending and the matter is not ripe for trial on merits before the appropriate Court. 28 8. Considering the entirety of the circumstances on record and in the peculiar facts, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief of bail. We, therefore, proceed to pass following directions: (a) The appellant shall be produced before the concerned Court within three days and the concerned Court shall release the appellant on bail subject to such conditions as the Court may deem it appropriate to impose. (b) Such conditions shall include following stipulations- (i) that the appellant shall swear an affidavit as to the details of the passport(s) held by him, which along with affidavit, shall be tendered before the Enforcement Directorate. (c) The appellant upon being released on bail shall mark his presence in the office of the Enforcement Directorate every Monday between 11.00 am to 1.00 pm. (d) The appellant shall not in any way hamper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as stated above. On the touchstone of law laid down by this Court, such a confessional statement of a co-accused cannot by itself be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused and can at best be used or utilised in order to lend assurance to the Court." Substantiating the arguments that when an accused is not involved in the predicate offence he should be granted bail, learned senior advocate relied upon Jai Narayan Sharma -vs- Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement in Criminal Appeal No. 2726 of 2023. Reliance was placed on paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said judgement which are set out below :- "5. Considering the role ascribed to the appellant, following are the peculiar facts which persuade us to consider the prayer made by the appellant for grant of bail: (a) The appellant is not shown as an accused in the predicate offence; (b) The only allegation against the appellant is that he allowed the principal accused to invest the proceeds of the crime in the share capital of a bank of which he was the Vice Chairman; (c) Though it is alleged that close associates/relatives of the main accused were made members and they were not entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and/or statements of public servants. There is remote chance of the petitioner influencing or intimidating such witnesses. In this backdrop it is highly improbable that release of the petitioner on bail would in any way interfere with the progress of investigation and/or intimidate witnesses. 13. It may also be relevant to note that in the opposition filed on behalf of the CBI, apart from stressing on the nature and gravity of the offence, there is no whisper that the petitioner would intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence. 14. In light of the tripod test, we are of the view the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail." Addressing the issue relating to influential persons having held high positions can be granted bail if there was no possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing or intimidating the witnesses the learned senior advocate has relied upon P. Chidambaram -vs- Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791. The attention of this court has been drawn to paragraphs 23 and 30 which are set out as follows:- "23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tigation, interrogation and facing trial is not jeopardised and he is already held to be not a "flight risk" and there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence or influencing/intimidating the witnesses. Taking these and all other facts and circumstances including the duration of custody into consideration the appellant in our considered view is entitled to be granted bail. It is made clear that the observations contained touching upon the merits either in the order of the High Court or in this order shall not be construed as an opinion expressed on merits and all contentions are left open to be considered during the course of trial." Reliance was also placed by the petitioner upon Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh -vs State of Maharashtra reported in 2022 SCC Online Bom 3150 on the issue of apparently influential persons who have been in high post have been impleaded on the statement of co-accused under Section 50 of PMLA additionally suffering on health can be granted bail. Additionally on suffering from health issues bail can be granted, paragraphs 62, 65, 79, 80, 81, 85, 88, 89, 93 and 96 of Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh (supra) have been relied upon which are set out as follows : " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. To what extent, even at this stage, the statements of co-accused can be used against another, may warrant consideration. Even if it is assumed that the confession of a co-accused can be used against another co-accused, in the event of a joint trial, under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, 1872, or for that matter in the event of grant of pardon, the co-accused Mr. Sachin Waze deposes as an approver in favour of the prosecution, the question of reliability may arise in the light of the well recognized principles of law. Undoubtedly, that would be a matter for trial. But the character in which the statements are made by Mr. Sachin Waze and credibility of accusation therein qua the Applicant, in the light of the material on record, does bear upon the exercise of discretion while considering the prayer for bail. 85. Without delving into the aspect of the alleged inconsistent statements made by Mr. Sachin Waze before the other forums including Justice Chandiwal Commission of Enquiry, where Mr. Sachin Waze, allegedly disowned everything, in my view, the aforesaid material, prima facie, renders it unsafe to place reliance on the statement of Mr. Sachin Waze, a co-accused, that cash a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1547. Reference was made to paragraphs 52 to 60 which are as follows : "52. The aforesaid shows that the Senior Medical Officer on 13.02.2023 has opined that the Applicant needs an attendant on a regular basis for timely medicines. He has suffered multiple episodes of seizures. The Medical Board has stated that the Applicant is stable with the medication. 53. The logical inference drawn from the above is that the Applicant is not in a position to take his regular dosage of medicines which is a condition precedent for his survival from the ailments. The attendant is required as the applicant has had multiple episodes of seizures and in event of a seizure, timely medication is of primary importance. 54. In the present case, it is observed that the medical report of the Applicant dated 28.01.2023 has stated as under: "The inmate patient submitted photocopies of document related to Seizure disorder from Deep Chand Bandhu govt. Hospital/Bhagwan Mahavir Govt. Hospital/Chawla Nursing Home and Dr. Praveen Bhatia (Ganga Ram Hospital) and Medical document shows that he has suffered Episodes of convulsion outside the jail (period of interim bail). MRI suggestive of defused age rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. PACL were tainted in any manner on account of an order dated 28.11.2003 of Rajasthan High Court in PACL India Ltd. v. Union of India as also an order dated 26.02.2013 in SEBI v. PACL India Ltd. in CA 6753- 54/2004 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to classify M/s. PACL as CIS but had only directed the SEBI on 22.08.2014 to look into its affairs and that there was no embargo for 18 years upon M/s. PACL on its operation. Admittedly the petitioner was a downstream investor of funds hence his submission he did not knowingly became a party to money laundering cannot be brushed aside lightly. Even otherwise he allegedly was a nominee non-executive director since 11.09.2012 in M/s. DDPL and M/s. Unicorn and prior to 11.09.2012 had nothing to do with these companies; further substantial amount received in the companies of petitioner was returned in the manner alleged above and even Gurmeet Singh's statement would show the petitioner represented the 25 companies were not associated with M/s. PACL. What weigh the statements under Section 50 of PMLA would carry at the end of trial cannot be tested at the stage of bail, more importantly when the intermediary companies wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his no objection for Arpita Mukherjee adopting a child and to take all responsibilities of the child in case there is any misfortune. (b) Insurance document where the 'customer name' appears as 'Arpita Mukherjee' and the 'nominee name' is of 'Partha Chatterjee' - relationship Uncle/others. The bank particulars of the savings bank and the maturity payment were also relied upon which also reflects that Partha Chatterjee happens to be the nominee in case of the customer name Arpita Mukherjee. Learned advocate for the Enforcement Directorate thereafter referred to the statements of Manoj Kumar Kathotia, Snehamoy Dutta, Kamal Singh Bhutoria, Mrinmoy Malakar, Debasish Debnath, Kalyanmoy Bhattacharya and Arpita Mukherjee to establish the control and dominion of the petitioner Partha Chatterjee in M/s Ananta Textab Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Echhay Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Ms. Symbiosis Merchants Pvt. Ltd, Ms. Sentry Engineering Pvt. Ltd., M/s Viewmore Highrise Pvt. Ltd., M/s. APA Utility Services and other companies as well as the huge immovable assets/properties which were acquired. In order to emphasise regarding the recovered cash and jewelleries, the Enforcement Directorate relied upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... economic offences relied upon series of judgments. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 reference was made to paragraphs 34 to 36 which are set out as follows: 34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 36. Taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude of the case and also the request of CBI asking for further time for completion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g two conditions for grant of bail to any person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule of PMLA: (i) That the prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application for bail; and (ii) That the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused person is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 30. The conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and needs to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA. Section 65 requires that the provisions of CrPC shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely be established, but having been made, the burden of proof that the monies were not the proceeds of crime and were not, therefore, tainted shifts on the accused persons under Section 24 of the 2002 Act. 22. It is not necessary to multiply the authorities on the sweep of Section 45 of the 2002 Act which, as aforementioned, is no more res integra. The decision in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra [Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294 : (2005) SCC (Cri) 1057] and State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty [State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty, (2012) 10 SCC 561 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 105] dealt with an analogous provision in the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. It has been expounded that the Court at the stage of considering the application for grant of bail, shall consider the question from the angle as to whether the accused was possessed of the requisite mens rea. The Court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence under the Act. The Court ought to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the court may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that the materials collected against the accused during the investigation may not justify a judgment of conviction. The findings recorded by the court while granting or refusing bail undoubtedly would be tentative in nature, which may not have any bearing on the merit of the case and the trial court would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial, without in any manner being prejudiced thereby." 24. Reverting to the decision in Manoranjana Sinh v. CBI [Manoranjana Sinh v. CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 520] , we hold that the same is on the facts of that case. Even in the said decision, the Court has noted that the grant or denial of bail is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each case. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 26 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 397] the Court was not called upon to consider the efficacy of Section 45 of the 2002 Act which is a special enactment." Attention was also drawn to Ani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sessions Court though repeatedly observed that the court ought not to go into the merits of the prosecution case actually the court appears to have gone into the merits of the matter, in particular the CCTV footage to hold that Anil Kumar Yadav could not have been present at the place of occurrence or participated in the incident. Further, the Sessions Court had also gone into the discrepancies of the statement of the witnesses. The probability or improbability of the prosecution version has to be judged based on the materials available to the court at the time when bail is considered and not on the basis of discrepancies. 22. While considering the correctness of the above findings, the learned Judge of the High Court viewed the CCTV footage and observed that the camera installed at the place of occurrence was a revolving camera moving horizontally and vertically and further observed that the "CCTV footage possibly could not capture the whole instance from all angles at the same time". After personally viewing CCTV footage, the learned Judge had given graphic description of the various slots/points and the relevant portion of the High Court judgment [Rohit Bansal v. State, 2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was in custody for more than one year, may not be a relevant consideration. In Gobarbhai Naranbhai case [Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 3 SCC 775 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 743] , it was observed that the period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. The same was reiterated in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688]." Reliance was also placed in Gautam Kundu V. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2015) 16 SCC 1 and attention was drawn to paragraph 37 of the said judgment which reads as follows: 37. We do not intend to further state the other facts excepting the fact that admittedly the complaint was filed against the appellant on the allegation of committing offence punishable under Section 4 of PMLA. The contention made on behalf of the appellant that no offence under Section 24 of the SEBI Act is made out against the appellant, which is a scheduled offence under PMLA, needs to be considered from the material collected during the investigation and further to be considered by the competent court of law. We do not intend to express ourse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will be impossible for the prosecution to obtain a judgment of conviction of the applicant. Such cannot be the intention of the legislature. Section 21(4) of MCOCA, therefore, must be construed reasonably. It must be so construed that the court is able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. Similarly, the court will be required to record a finding as to the possibility of his committing a crime after grant of bail. However, such an offence in futuro must be an offence under the Act and not any other offence. Since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of an accused, the court must necessarily consider this aspect of the matter having regard to the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence. 45. It is, furthermore, trite that for the purpose of considering an application for grant of bail, although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned, the order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind at least in serious cases as to why the applicant has been granted or denied the priv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est in the discharge of sovereign duty of the State to investigate, prosecute and punish an offender on the other hand. Detention of an undertrial is not to punish him even before he is pronounced guilty. The purpose of detention pending trial is to ensure smooth and proper administration of criminal justice. 8. To decide whether an undertrial ought to be granted or denied liberty, the Court is required to consider the following relevant factors:- (i) Gravity and seriousness of the accusation; (ii) Materials collected in support of the accusation; (iii) Possibility of the accused committing similar offences while on bail; (iv) Chance of abscondence; (v) Possibility of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering evidence; (vi) Character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (vii) Impact of the release of the accused on society in general and the victims/witnesses in particular. Consideration of the bail plea of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid parameters:- (i) Gravity of seriousness of the accusation:- 9. In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2020) 10 SCC 51 the Apex Court laid down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which demonstrates trust, faith and confidence from both the sides, as the petitioner is the nominee in the bank account and insurance policies and the immoveable properties which have been purchased through different companies were in the name of Ms. Arpita Mukherjee. Thus the statement which points to the cash seizures and jewelleries from the two flats do not at this stage create any circumstance in favour of the petitioner to overcome the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA. So far as the contentions relating to admissibility of section 50 of the PMLA as emphasized by the petitioner, it would be worthwhile to set out paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Satyendar Kumar Jain vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC Online SC 317. The relevant paragraphs are set out as follows: "22. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the respondent ED has placed heavy reliance on the statements of witnesses recorded and the documents produced by them under Section 50 of the said Act, to prima facie show the involvement of all the three appellants in the alleged offence of money laundering under Section 3 thereof. In Rohi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial and evidence, the involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed, the authorised officials can certainly proceed against him for his acts of commission or omission. In such a situation, at the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, if his/her statement is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official, the consequences of Article 20(3) or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play to urge that the same being in the nature of confession, shall not be proved against him. Further, it would not preclude the prosecution from proceeding against such a person including for consequences under Section 63 of the 2002 Act on the basis of other tangible material to indicate the falsity of his claim. That would be a matter of rule of evidence." On the aspect of period of detention of the petitioner which has been canvassed by the ld. Senior Advocate, I am of the view that as it has been held in Manish Sisodia -vs.-Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 SCC Online SC 1393 and in Satyendar Kumar Jain (supra) that right to speedy trial and access to justice is a valuable right as enshrined in the Constitu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
