IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Mr. Rajnikant Tiwari, S/o Lt. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, GOI, Through its Assistant Director, Mr. Nirmal Jharwal – Respondent
MCRCA No. 816 of 2023
Decided on : 02-11-2023
PMLA - Anticipatory Bail - Sections 186, 204, 353, 120B, 384 of IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under various sections of IPC and PMLA. The prosecution alleged the applicant's involvement in an extortion syndicate and illegal cash transactions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant's involvement in the extortion racket and illegal cash management was supported by evidence collected by the Enforcement Directorate. The court also noted the gravity of the economic offences and the potential influence on witnesses and evidence.
Issues: The court analyzed whether the non-arrest of the applicant entitled him to anticipatory bail under Section 19 of the PMLA, and whether the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA were satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-arrest of the applicant did not automatically entitle him to anticipatory bail, and the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied, considering the gravity of the offence and potential influence on witnesses and evidence.
Final Decision: The bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail was rejected, with the court clarifying that the observations made in the judgment would not influence the trial court on the merits of the case.
ORDER :
1. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of anticipatory bail, who has apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime No. ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022 registered at Police Station- Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal Office, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 186, 204, 353, 120B, 384 of IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “the PMLA, 2002”).
2. The case of the prosecution is that during a search and seizure investigation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act conducted on 30.06.2022 and one Mr. Suryakant Tiwari at a hotel room of Hotel Shereton Grand, Bengaluru, certain incriminating materials are said to have been found, based upon which a complaint was lodged by the Income Tax Department at the Kadugodi, Police Station Bengaluru alleging offences under Sections 186, 204 and 353 read with Section 120B of the IPC which led to the registration of the FIR. Based upon the further investigation the Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR No. RPZO/09/2022 and further investigation was conducted. In the course of the investigation, main accused-Suryakant Tiwari was summoned and was arrested on 13.10.2022.
3. It is further case of the prosecution that the prosecution has recovered diaries from the possession of Smt. Soumya Chourasiya and the main accused- Suryakant Tiwari, from which it would reveal transaction of cash money between Smt. Soumya Chourasiya and the main accused- Suryakant Tiwari. It is also case of the prosecution that object of Suryakant Tiwari to tamper and destroy the important documents as well as electronic gadgets and Suryakant Tiwari along with his brother, Rajnikant Tiwari and his associates Hemant Jaiswal, Jogendra Singh, Moinuddin Quaraishi, Nikhil Chandrakar, Roshan Singh and others were involved in criminal conspiracy to run a parallel system of collecting illegal levy on coal and were doing illegal and unaccounted cash movement as per instructions of Suryakant Tiwari. All the above mentioned associates of Suryakant Tiwari had admitted in their statements recorded before the Income Tax officials that they were doing the illegal levy collection on the instructions of Suryakant Tiwari. The proceeds received from the above referred to action were being used for taking undue advantage and to influence public servants by corrupt and illegal means and by exercise of personal influence.
4. The role of the present applicant is that he was an active member of the extortion syndicate. He was the focal point where all the extorted cash was deposited and was stored and subsequently dispatched for utilization as per the instructions of Suryakant Tiwari. Large amount of cash was also used to purchase immovable assets in the name of the present applicant. Many of the hand written entries in the diaries were made by the present applicant only. He knowingly and actively participated in the extortion racket and acted as the accountant who managed the illegal cash. After Suryakant Tiwari, only the present applicant could finalize/verify the bills raised by various vendors, contractors etc. It was also accepted by broker of the immovable properties viz. Watan Chandrakar, Ved Prakash Sahu @ Pappu Sahu, Ajay Naidu etc. that deal for purchasing of immovable parties was finalized by the present applicant and the payment of cash over and above the registered value of the property was handed over by the present applicant to the seller of the properties.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a case where the applicant would be entitled for the benefit under the exceptions carved out under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002. He would further submit that the applicant has cooperated with the Investigating Agency on all occasions and there is no further possibility of the applicant misusing the bail or would influence in any manner the investigation o
Dukhishyam Benupani, Assistant Director
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Satender Antil Vs. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773
Satender Antil Vs. CBI & another
State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others (1987) 2 SCC 364
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439
The gravity of economic offences, potential influence on witnesses and evidence, and the failure to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA were central to the court's decis....
An individual can be prosecuted under the PMLA, even if not directly involved in the scheduled offence, and the gravity of economic offences needs to be considered in the matter of bail. The court al....
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 mandatory conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for granting anticipatory bail were not satisfied, emphasizing economic offences' serious nature.
The provisions of S.45 of the PMLA do not apply to anticipatory bail proceedings, allowing for bail grants based on case-specific circumstances.
Offence of money-laundering - Anticipatory bail rejected - Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, Court mu....
Anticipatory bail in economic offences requires careful consideration of the gravity of accusations, potential for absconding, and must be granted sparingly, especially under the Prevention of Money ....
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.