IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.
Satish Kumar Jha S/o Kameshwar Jha - Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (PMLA) - Opposite Party
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3764 of 2023
Decided On : 02-08-2023
Money Laundering - Anticipatory Bail - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (P.M.L. Act) - Section 4
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a case under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (P.M.L. Act). The allegations involved illegal transfer and misuse of public funds, acquisition of proceeds of crime, and money laundering through various transactions and property acquisitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail after considering the allegations, the petitioner's involvement in acquisition and transfer of proceeds of crime, and the provisions of Section 45 of the P.M.L. Act.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's alleged involvement in money laundering, acquisition of proceeds of crime, and the application for anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of Section 45 of the P.M.L. Act, which sets stringent conditions for granting bail in money laundering cases.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri S.D.Sanjay, learned senior counsel assisted by Smt. Priya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.N.Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party / Directorate of Enforcement.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Special Trial No. (PMLA) No. 05 of 2021, arising out of ECIR No. PTZO / 04 / 2018 dated 24.05.2018, for offence alleged under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.M.L. Act’).
3. It is alleged that the office bearers of Srijan Mahila Vikas Sahyog Samiti Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “S.M.V.S.S.L.”) Sabour, Bhagalpur, in conspiracy with the officers / office bearers of Indian Bank, Patal Babu Road, Bhagalpur, Bank of Baroda, Dr.R.P. Road, Ghanta Ghar, Bhagalpur, Bank of Baroda, Saharsa and State Government officials and others illegally transferred and misused the public funds from State Govt. accounts in fraudulent manner for personal gain. It is further alleged that the petitioner and other co-accused persons have acquired proceeds of crime by commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 47, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the charges of corruption, criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery related to Schedule Offences as defined under P.M.L.Act and by investing the said proceeds of crime in various movable and immovable properties, in an attempt to project it as untainted, all have committed offence under Section 3 of the P.M.L.Act, which is punishable under Section 4 of the P.M.L.Act. Thus, the complaint under Section 44 & 45 of the P.M.L.Act has been filed against 22 accused persons including the petitioner Satish Kumar Jha. It is further specifically alleged that the petitioner was one of the close associates of Late Manorama Devi, the then Secretary of SMVSSL and he was knowingly involved in processes/activities connected with proceeds of crime like concealment, possession, acquisition, use and transfer of proceeds of crime and projection of the same as untainted. Several FIRs/Chargesheet have been filed in the case of M/s Srijan Mahila Vikas Sohyog Samiti Ltd. & Others including the petitioner for offences which are scheduled under the P.M.L.Act and through commission of these offences petitioner has generated huge proceeds of crime. It is further alleged that the petitioner retired as Sub Divisional Audit officer, Audit Department of Cooperative Societies, Bhagalpur, Bihar and he deliberately failed to do proper audit of account of SMVSSL and one of the close associates of Late Manorama Devi and in lieu of help provided by the petitioner, he had been offered flats in Gardenia, which was funded from the account of SMVSSL and Manorama Devi. The petitioner has acquired a flat, bearing no. Emerald I/505, Gardenia Glamour Phase II Project for Rs. 25 lacs in the name of his daughter Meenakshi Jha, w/o Suman Kumar Jha and during investigation it was observed that Meenakshi Jha was maintaining a Bank account bearing No. 916407880 jointly with her husband Shri Suman Kumar Jha in Indian Bank, Bhagalpur. It is also alleged that illegal money was deposited in the Bank account of Minakshi Jha and it was further used to acquisition of immovable property i.e. Flat No. Emerald I/505, Gardenia Glamour Phase II, Ghaziabad. Petitioner has acquired another Flat bearing no. Emerald – I/605, Gardenia Glamour Phase-II project which was booked for Rs. 25 lacs in the name of Himanshu Shekhar Jha S/o Satish Kumar Jha. It is also alleged that Himanshu Shekhar Jha was maintaining a Bank A/c No. 996609382 and his brother Shubhranshu Shekhar Jha was maintaining a Bank A/c No. 916409504 in Indian Bank, Bhagalpur. These accounts were managed by their father i.e. the petitioner Satish Kumar Jha to launder proceeds of crime. Huge cash deposits have been revealed in
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion to grant bail to women accused under the first proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
The mandatory conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for granting anticipatory bail were not satisfied, emphasizing economic offences' serious nature.
The court established that Section 45 of PMLA 2002 applies to the grant of anticipatory bail, with a proviso for leniency towards women, and that the nature of property attachment proceedings does no....
The court established that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA provides discretion to grant bail to women accused, allowing for a more lenient approach in considering bail applications based on ....
Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail.
The provisions of S.45 of the PMLA do not apply to anticipatory bail proceedings, allowing for bail grants based on case-specific circumstances.
Order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind as to why applicant has been granted or denied privilege of bail.
Bail petition – Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.