Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Chitra Ramkrishna – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate – Respondent
Bail Appln. 2919 of 2022 & Crl.M.(Bail) 1188 of 2022
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Money Laundering - Bail Application - Sections 3/4 of PMLA - Sections 120BAIL B/420/409 IPC - Sections 20/21/24/26 of Indian Telegraph Act - Sections 3 and 6 of Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act - Sections 69B/72/72A of the Information Technology Act - Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought regular bail in connection with the present ECIR, which was dismissed by the learned Special Judge. The allegations against the applicant relate to illegal interception/monitoring of telephone calls of employees of the National Stock Exchange Ltd. (NSE) under the guise of a contract with M/s ISEC Services Private Limited. The applicant has been in custody since 14.07.2022. The charge sheet has already been filed.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the scheduled offences alleged against the applicant and found that the ingredients of the scheduled offences under IPC, IT Act, and PC Act were not established. The court also noted that the provisions of PMLA could not be attracted to the present case as no scheduled offences against the applicant were established. The court granted bail to the applicant based on the finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was not guilty of the offence and was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Issues: Prima facie determination of scheduled offences under PMLA, consideration of bail under section 45 PMLA, and the application of the proviso to section 45 PMLA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the ingredients of the scheduled offences under IPC, IT Act, and PC Act were not established, and therefore, the provisions of PMLA could not be attracted to the present case. The court granted bail to the applicant based on the finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was not guilty of the offence and was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and granted bail to the applicant in ECIR/DLZO-I/28/2022 dated 11.07.2022 on specific terms and conditions.
JUDGMENT
Jasmeet Singh, J.
1. This is a petition filed seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in ECIR/DLZO-I/28/2022 dated 11.07.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
2. The ECIR was registered by the Respondent, after CBI filed an FIR/RC on 07.07.2022 for the offences punishable under Section 120BAIL B/420/409 Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 20/21/24/26 of the Indian Telegraph Act as well as Sections 3 and 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, and Sections 69B/72/72A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act), and Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).
3. The Applicant has been in custody since 14.07.2022 in relation to the present ECIR.
4. The applicant and other persons have been alleged to have illegally intercepted/monitored telephone calls of employees of the National Stock Exchange Ltd. (hereinafter "NSE"). It is stated that illegal tapping of phone calls of NSE employees was conducted under the guise of an agreement between NSE and M/s ISEC Services Private Limited (hereinafter "ISEC").
5. To conduct Periodic Study Of Cyber Vulnerabilities, a payment of approximately Rs. 4.54 crores was made by NSE to ISEC for the work between 01.01.2009 to 13.02.2017.
6. It has been alleged that ISEC monitored/intercepted the calls of 4 MTNL PRI lines, each having capacity of 30 telephone connections used by the employees of NSE.
7. It is also alleged that ISEC submitted the transcripts of conversations to top management of NSE during 01.01.2009 to 13.02.2017. The applicant was the Deputy Managing Director (hereinafter "DMD") of the NSE till 2010, Joint Managing Director (hereinafter "JMD") till March, 2013 and Managing Director (hereinafter "MD") till December, 2016.
8. The statement of the applicant was recorded on 21.05.2022 under Section 50 of the PMLA, pursuant to the permission granted to ED on 20.05.2022. The statements of the Applicant were also recorded on 14th-17th, 19th and 21st July 2022 pursuant to her remand/custody orders. The charge sheet has already been filed on 09.09.2022.
9. On 05.08.2022, the applicant sought regular bail before the learned Special Judge, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi in connection with the present ECIR which was dismissed on 29.08.2022.
10. The allegations against the applicant as per the prosecution complaint are primarily:
"During the initial meeting for award of this contract in 2009, Sh. Sanjay Pandey, one of the founding directors of the company till 2006 visited NSE to represent M/s. ISEC in the discussion. During these deliberations, NSE was represented amongst others by Sh. Ravi Narayan (the then MD) & Ms. Chitra Ramkrishna (the then DMD) NSE.
...
The telephone numbers to be monitored were identified by Ms. Chitra Ramkrishna (DMD), NSE Mumbai and conveyed to M/s. ISEC through employees of NSE. The identified officers/departments included Market Watch, Market Surveillance, Risk Management having access to critical online information and access to online Real time data bases.
...
The payment of Rs. 4.54 Crore (approx.) was made by NSE to ISEC for this work between 01.01.2009 to 13.02.2017.
The above facts revealed that during 2009 to 2017, Shri Ravi Narain, the then MD (from 2009 to 2013), Ms. Chitra Ramkrishna, the then DMD/JMD (2009 to 2013) & the then MD (2013-2016) abusing their official position entered into a conspiracy with M/s. ISEC in furtherance of which M/s. ISEC was engaged for illegal interception of phone calls of employees of NSE in the guise of Periodic Study of Cyber Vulnerabilities of NSE."
11. Ms. Rebecca John, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant contends the following:
11.1. As per the statement of Sanjay Pandey (one of the coaccused and director of M/s ISEC), stated that it was Mr. Ravi Narain who introduced the applicant to Mr. Sanjay Pandey in 2009.
11.2. Mr. Ravi Narain asked Mr. Sanjay Pandey to send pro
The court found that the scheduled offences alleged against the applicant were not established, and therefore, the provisions of PMLA could not be attracted to the present case. The court granted bai....
Lawfulness of call recording activities requires consent; absence of dishonest intent under IPC prevents cognizable charges, and no proceeds of crime established under PMLA.
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 court granted bail under the PMLA, emphasizing the lack of sufficient evidence linking the applicant to money laundering, and highlighting the necessity for a predicate offence to substantiate ch....
Order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind as to why applicant has been granted or denied privilege of bail.
Under the PMLA, an applicant for bail must satisfy the twin conditions of Section 45, which requires the court to have reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commi....
The judgment emphasizes the need to balance personal liberty with the security of the community, considering the gravity of the alleged economic offences and the period of sentence.
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 off....
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
