IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Tirthankar Ghosh, J.
Sri Shailesh Kumar Pandey – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
CRM (SB) 206 of 2023
Decided On : 07-05-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner requests bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations involve misconduct including money laundering. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. investigation indicates substantial evidence of financial fraud. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court weighs constitutional rights against statutory provisions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. final ruling denies bail based on ongoing investigations. (Para 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
Tirthankar Ghosh, J.
1. 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.
Angela Harish Sontakke v. State of Maharashtra
Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427
Enforcement Directorate to paragraph 34 of Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 528
Kartar Singh case, Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 291
Manish Sisodia Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699
Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2016) 15 SCC 422
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791
Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe v. State of Maharashtra
Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40
Sanjay Pandey v. Directorate of Enforcement
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 10 SCC 51
Satyendar Kumar Jain vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India
Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer AIR 1956 SC 404
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565
State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer AIR 1958 SC 61
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India
Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 7 SCC 387
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....
Bail – Delay and long detention in custody cannot be a ground for grant of bail in cases of money laundering.
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....
In PMLA cases, constitutional courts grant bail despite Section 45 twin conditions if prolonged incarceration (over two years), trial delay not attributable to accused, and no reasonable trial conclu....
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.