The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as there were no reasonable grounds for believing that she had committed an offence under the PMLA Act and that she was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

JUDGMENT :

Tirthankar Ghosh, J.

1. The present application for bail has been preferred in connection with M. L. Case No. 13 of 2022 arising out of ECIR No. KLZOII/19/2022 dated June, 24, 2022 under Section 3 read with Section 70 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

2. The allegations as set out in the complaint against the petitioner is as follows:-

“Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya is the wife of Shri Manik Bhattacharya who are knowingly assisted Shri Manik Bhattaharya in the process of concealing and laundering the proceeds of crime acquired by Shri Manik Bhattacharya through criminal activity relating to the scheduled offences. Investigation conducted under PMLA revealed that Smt. Satarupa Bhattacharya and Sri Manik Bhattacharya in conspiracy with themselves and other induced their family members and relatives and pursuant to that conspiracy opened a number of joint bank accounts with those induced persons without informing them the purpose of opening the such joint bank accounts in her control, occupation and operation. Investigation further revealed that one of the joint bank accounts opened with Late Shri Mrityunjay Chatterjee who passed away in the year 2016 itself but Shri Satarupa Bhattacharya updated the KYC of the said bank accounts by showing the said expired Late Shri Mrityunjay Chatterjee as out of station. Further, she also infused huge sum in that bank accounts recently after the death of the said Mrityunjay Chatterjee and from there the same were used for making FD jointly in the name of herself and her relative Shri Pannalal Bhattacharya. Further, Shri Satarupa Bhattacharyta operated those accounts by showing herself as secondary holder but the said bank accounts was completely under her control and use.

That the investigation conducted under PMLA revealed that she is a housewife and totally dependent on her husband Shri Manik Bhattacharya which means that the amount as well as the bank accounts being maintained singly in her name is nothing but the proceeds of crime generated by Shri Manik Bhattacharya out of criminal activity relating to the scheduled offenes under PMLA, 2002.

As such, it is clearly established that she was involved in the acquisition, use, possession and concealment of proceeds of crime with the assistance of other accused persons and entities. Thus, the accused person has committed the offence of Money Laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA and is, therefore, liable to be punished under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002.

Aforesaid acts committed by her are covered by the definition of offence of money-laundering. 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, she continued to be involved from the facts of the case, she continued to be involved in processes and activities connected with said proceeds of crime and continued to be in possession and use of the said proceeds of crime. In view of the facts and aforesaid legal explanation, it is noticed that she 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”.

3. Mr. Saha, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that at the stage of filing of the complaint, the Investigating Agency/prosecution prayed for issuance of process against the accused persons which included the present petitioner.

4. Learned advocate submitted that at the time when the complaint was filed before the learned special court on 7th December, 2022, the learned court was pleased to take cognizance of the offen