Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.
Arun Pati Tripathi S/o Late Shri Prakash Pati Tripathi - Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement Raipur - Respondent
MCRC No. 6598 of 2024
Decided on : 25-10-2024
(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 – Bail application – Applicant sought bail after being arrested under ECIR for money laundering – The court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, referencing Supreme Court judgments that reinforce this principle – The applicant's involvement in a significant liquor scam was established, with allegations of conspiracy and illegal earnings – The court found no new evidence to warrant bail, citing the serious nature of the charges and the applicant's influential position. (Paras 1-34)
(B) Bail – The court reiterated that the gravity of economic offences necessitates a stringent approach to bail applications, particularly under PMLA – The applicant's prolonged incarceration and previous bail grants were considered, but the court ultimately denied bail due to the serious nature of the allegations. (Paras 8, 34)
(C) Economic Offences – The court recognized that economic offences pose a significant threat to the financial system and national integrity, warranting careful scrutiny in bail considerations. (Paras 28, 34)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested in connection with a money laundering case linked to a liquor scam, with allegations of conspiracy and illegal financial activities.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient evidence of the applicant's involvement in serious economic offences and denied bail based on the gravity of the charges. Issues: The main issues included the interpretation of Section 45 of the PMLA and the applicant's role in the alleged scam.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the serious nature of the allegations and the applicant's influential position justified the denial of bail, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Result: Bail application rejected.
ORDER :
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.
By way of present application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 45 of the PMLA on behalf of the applicant herein, is seeking grant of regular bail in ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 dated 11.04.2024.
2. The applicant was arrested in pursuance of ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 of 2024 registered with Raipur Zone dated 11.04.2024 by the Directorate of Enforcement. The ED had registered the above stated ECIR pursuant to the predicate offence which was registered by EOW, Raipur dated 17.01.2024 as FIR No. 04 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420,467, 468,471 of IPC and Section 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case of the applicant falls under Schedule One, Part -A (offence under the IPC) and para -8 (Offence under PC Act) as per Section 3 & 4 of the PMLA.
3. It is submitted that the apart from the present case, the applicant has following criminal antecedents against him.
i) FIR No. 196/2023 registered by PS Kasna, Greater Noida, Commissionerate Guatam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 468,471,473,484 and 120-B of IPC. The charge sheet has been filed against co-accused in the said matter however no cognizance of the same has been taken. Further the proceedings in the FIR has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and accordingly, he was released from custody in the said case.
ii) FIR No. 04/2024 has been registered by the ACB, Raipur u/s. 420,467,468,471,120-B IPC read with Section 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant was arrested and charge sheet has been filed inter alia against the applicant therein. The matter is pending trial before the learned Court of Special Judge (PC Act) Raipur. This FIR is the predicate offence for the ECIR 04.
iii) ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA (complain filed by the income Tax Department under provisions of the Income Tax Act read with Section 120-B IPC).Charge sheet has been filed by the ED in this ECIR on 04.07.2023 however, vide Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 08.04.2024 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 153/2023 quashed the complaint with a finding that there was no scheduled offence and no proceeds of crime in relation to the said case.
4. As per the case of prosecution, the investigation is concluded and as per the prosecution complaint quoted “ there is sufficient evidence on record to establish the charge of commission of offence of money laundering against the applicant. Out of the total proceeds of crime, ED has already identified and attached assets worth Rs. 205 crores approximately. Investigation into the role of the accused persons is complete and hence the present complaint is being filed.”
5. The investigation in relation to ECIR 11 of 2022 is concluded and the prosecution complaint was filed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the complaint however based on the investigation carried out in pursuance of ECIR 11 of 2022 the said ECIR (4 of 2024) is registered. There is nothing new that has come on record. On reading of the complaint it is clear that the material of investigation before ECIR 11 of 2022 is used in ECIR 4 of 2024, including foreign trips and investment for which on 31.03.2023 and 01.04.2023 the statements of the wife of the applicant under Section 50 of the PMLA were recorded in ECIR 11 of 2022, and thereafter on 04.06.2024, 05.06.2024,06,06,2024 and 08.06.2024 the statements of wife of the applicant were recorded in ECIR 4 of 2024 and the same version was made before the investigating officer. Similarly the statement of the applicant was recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA in ECIR 11 of 2022 on 31.03.2023, 01.04.2023,03,04.2023,08.04.2023,19.04.2023 and 20.04.2023 and in ECIR 4 of 2024, on 8.05.2024, 31.05.2024, 09.08.2024,10.08.2024,11.08.2024,12.08.2024, 13.08.2024 and 14.08.2024. The applicant retracted his statement on 05.04.2023,11.04.2023 and 21.04.2023 in ECIR 11 of 2022, however, h
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially in serious economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, where the gravity of charges necessitates stringent scrutiny.
The court emphasized that in economic offences, especially under the PMLA, bail should not be granted unless the accused demonstrates they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, due to the serious nature of the allegations and the evidence presented.
The court emphasized that bail under the PMLA requires satisfaction of twin conditions regarding the accused's guilt and likelihood of committing further offences, which were not met in this case.
In economic offences, bail is not a right; the burden rests on the applicant to show no risk of interference with justice or likelihood of guilt, reinforced by the position of the accused.
The court emphasized that bail is the exception, not the rule, particularly in serious economic offences, where the risk of tampering with evidence and flight is significant.
The court emphasized that bail is not a right in cases involving serious economic offences, particularly where substantial evidence of corruption exists.
The court held that the seriousness of economic offences under the PMLA necessitates stringent bail conditions, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration does not automatically warrant bail if substan....
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
