Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Tirthankar Ghosh, J.
Shailesh Kumar Pandey – Petitioner
versus
Union of India – Respondent
CRM (SB) 206 of 2023
Decided on 7.5.2024
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail application – Case registered for investigation under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Role of petitioner was for concealment and projecting proceeds of crime as untainted money – Petitioner has enriched himself by way of services rendered which are no-way related to his professional work as a Chartered Accountant – Delay and long detention in custody have never been accepted by Constitutional Courts and wherever there has been unreasonable delay Courts have favoured constitutional mandate of liberty – However, there are cases where statute is built in such a manner that complicity simpliciter is not a criteria but detention is on the basis of guilt and present case is one of such nature – Delay and long detention in custody have never been accepted by Constitutional Courts and wherever there has been unreasonable delay Courts have favoured constitutional mandate of liberty – However, there are cases where statute is built in such a manner that complicity simpliciter is not a criteria but detention is on the basis of guilt and present case is one of such nature – Prayer for bail rejected. (Paras 32 and 33)
Result: Bail Application dismissed.
JUDGEMENT
Tirthankar Ghosh, J.—Petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with M.L. Case No. 01/2023 pending before the Learned Special Judge, CBI Court No.1 (being the learned Judge-in-charge of E.D. Court) as he is in custody for more than 14 months and there has been no progress in the case, further according to the petitioner investigation is still continuing and there is hardly any possibility of the trial commencing soon.
2. The genesis of the case was on the basis of a complaint by the Regional Manager, Regional Office III, Canara Bank, Kolkata and the subject related to one of the branches of the Bank at Narendrapur, B.D. Memorial Institute, West Bengal wherein M/s. T.M. Traders (A/C No. 120001761068) and M/s. K.K. Traders (A/C no. 120001761042) opened current account in their names on 31.08.2022. The aforesaid two firms submitted their KYC documents alongwith the account opening forms. Transactions were made on 12.09.2022 by M/s. T.M. Traders and on 03.09.2022 by M/s. K.K. Traders in their account. During the initial stage there were no huge transactions noticed by OTM Cell, Bangalore, (which is the controlling office of the bank, engaged in vigilance over abnormal transactions in newly opened accounts). On 17.09.2022 after observing huge debit transaction in the account of the aforesaid two firms Regional Office –III was informed for confirming regarding the genuineness of the account and for KYC compliance. As there were huge debit credit entries within a span of less than a month, the credibility of the transactions were suspected, thus to cross-check the authenticity of the residential permanent address appearing in Aadhar and PAN Card address the bank officials visited the addresses so furnished when it was detected that the parties were hailing from Jamshedppur, Jharkhand. No parties were carrying out business at the address which were furnished in the account opening form and also no such parties existed at the address furnished in Jamshedpur.
3. It was alleged that the entire credits were effected through UPI, NEFT, RTGS transaction and therefore transferred to multiple accounts by the customer to the parties via internet banking channel initiated by the customer either on the same day or next day. M/s. National Payment Corporation of India alerted the head office of Canara Bank on 30.09.2022 regarding unauthorized entity using account of Canara Bank for forex funding purposes prohibited by RBI. Name of the entity/website was TP Global FX account, A/C M/s. T.M. Traders, A/c no. 120001761068, IFSC-CNRB0019754. A criminal case was directed to be initiated as the parties have committed a criminal act against the bank by involving themselves in the process of some money laundering activities by a group of unscrupulous person/persons.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint dated 01.10.2022 referred to the Deputy Commissioner, Cyber Crime Police the criminal case being Hare Street P.S. Case no. 290 dated 14.10.2022 was registered for investigation under Section 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Based upon Hare Street P.S. case no. 290/2022 dated 14.10.2022 under Section 120B/420/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code, the Enforcement Directorate initiated their investigation/enquiry being ECIR/KLZO-II/21/2022 dated 21.10.2022.
6. The ECIR by and large reflected transactions made through internet banking channel used by the entity/website T.P. Global FX. Further the transfer of funds which were made from the two accounts through online mode to Punjab National Bank, Salt Lake Branch in the name of M/s. P.K. Traders, M/s. M.R. Traders and M/s R.K. Trading all of them having same address with that of the other two firms named above. On enquiry it surfaced that the 5 firms did not exist. The address of the entities furnished were temporarily on rent for two months by another company namely M/s. T.P.G. Commercial Pvt. Ltd. The transactions in the fictitious accounts were through non-existent companies to d
Bail – Delay and long detention in custody cannot be a ground for grant of bail in cases of money laundering.
Economic offences like money laundering under the PMLA warrant severe scrutiny for bail, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial while recognizing the gravity of the allegations and prolonged detenti....
Prolonged incarceration before trial infringes on the right to speedy trial, necessitating bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act if trial delays are significant.
The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial and liberty, allowing bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after 15 months of custody, citing no likelihood of trial commencement.
PMLA Section 45 twin conditions yield to Article 21 where prolonged pre-trial detention exceeds reasonable time without trial progress, converting detention to punishment; bail granted as rule when e....
Prolonged incarceration without trial infringes the right to liberty; bail is the rule, jail is the exception.
PMLA Section 45 twin conditions relaxable by constitutional courts for bail if prolonged custody (over 2 years) and unlikely timely trial violate Article 21, absent accused delay, with voluminous doc....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
