Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Devendra Singh Yadav, S/o. Late Sh. Indal Singh Yadav - Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Rep. by its Assistant Director, Shri R. Naresh - Respondent
MCRCA No. 139 of 2024
Decided On : 12-03-2024
PMLA - Anticipatory Bail - Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA, 2002 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 22, 24, and 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and interpreted the legal precedents established by the Supreme Court and High Courts in relation to the said provisions. The court emphasized that an individual can be prosecuted under the PMLA, even if not directly involved in the scheduled offence, and highlighted the burden of proof and presumption regarding records or property in certain cases. The court also considered the gravity of economic offences and the parameters for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002). The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in a criminal conspiracy to run a parallel system of collecting illegal levy on coal and was receiving proceeds from the illegal activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant had prima facie committed an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, as the material collected by the Enforcement Directorate reflected the applicant's involvement in knowingly obtaining the proceeds of crime and committing the offence. The court also noted that the applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions required for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002.
Issues: The court analyzed two main issues: (1) Whether the applicant, though not named in the FIR or prosecution complaint, can be involved in the commission of offence under the PMLA, 2002, and (2) Whether the twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 are available on record to release the applicant by granting anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an individual can be prosecuted under the PMLA, even if not directly involved in the scheduled offence, and emphasized the burden of proof and presumption regarding records or property in certain cases. The court also considered the gravity of economic offences and the parameters for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002.
Final Decision: The bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected, as the court found that the applicant had prima facie committed an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, and failed to satisfy the twin conditions required for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002.
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 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 was 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 the present applicant has obtained a cash of Rs. 3 crore out of the proceed of crime. The applicant in his statement under Section 17 of the PMLA, 2002 has confirmed that Mr. Suryakant Tiwari is known to him for the last five years, he used to make conversation with Mr. Suryakant Tiwari over phone/whatsapp call and being In-charge of Khairagarh by-poll conducted in April, 2022, he was looking after campaigning, management of party workers related to Khairagrh by-election etc. and there was a whatsapp chat dated 09.04.2022 collected by the Enforcement Directorate which shows that the present applicant has received an amount of Rs. 35 lacs from Suryakant Tiwari. The whatsapp chat dated 05.04.2022 further shows that the present applicant has asked Suryakant Tiwari for arranging a programme of Dr. Kumar Biswas on Ram Navami and further asked Mr. Tiwari to arrange @ Rs. 25 lacs excluding tax which had to be made from genuine income only. The further case of the Enforcement Directorate is that Nikhil Chandrakar who is close associate of Suryakant Tiwari, whose statement has been recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 on 26.12.2022 & 27.12.2022 has stated that the entry in the name of D. Yadav pertains to Mr. Devendra Yadav, MLA of Bhilai present applicant and this cash was handed over to him through a person namely Nawaz near the house of minister Mohammad Akbar.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated and
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....
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....
The mandatory conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for granting anticipatory bail were not satisfied, emphasizing economic offences' serious nature.
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 court ruled that in economic offenses, particularly money laundering, anticipatory bail is rarely granted due to the grave nature of allegations and potential interference with investigations.
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....
The court emphasized that in economic offences under the PMLA, bail is not granted unless the accused proves they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
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
