Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Avtar Singh Kocchar @ Dolly - Appellant
Versus
Enforcement Directorate - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1814 of 2023
Decided On : 29-11-2023
Money Laundering - Bail Application - Sections 45 and 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - [170, 384, 386, 388, 9, 420, 506, 120B IPC, 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000] - The court discussed the scope of Section 3 of PMLA, the discretion to be exercised at the stage of bail, and the balance between statutory embargo and period of incarceration. The court considered the wholesome view of the case, the role of the petitioner, and the heinousness of the alleged offence. The court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The bail application was moved under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 45 and 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 seeking bail in ECIR No. ECIR/DLZO-II/54/2021 Zone Delhi zone II dated 08.08.2021. The facts in brief as stated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) are related to the investigation of an extortion case involving the petitioner and other accused persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the evidence against the petitioner, the scope of Section 3 of PMLA, and the discretion to be exercised at the stage of bail. It also discussed the balance between statutory embargo and period of incarceration. The court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions.
Issues: The court considered the evidence against the petitioner, the scope of Section 3 of PMLA, the discretion to be exercised at the stage of bail, and the balance between statutory embargo and period of incarceration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court granted bail to the petitioner after considering the wholesome view of the case, the role of the petitioner, and the heinousness of the alleged offence. The court also discussed the discretion to be exercised at the stage of bail and the balance between statutory embargo and period of incarceration.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
| Sl.No. | INDEX | Para Nos. |
| 1. | FACTUAL MATRIX | 1-3 |
| 2. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER | 4-9 |
| 3. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT/E.D. | 10-13 |
| 4. | FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIOIN | 14-26 |
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present bail application has been moved under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 45 and 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on behalf of the petitioner seeking bail in ECIR No. ECIR/DLZO-II/54/2021 Zone Delhi zone II dated 08.08.2021.
2. The facts in brief as stated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) are as under:
i. That Special Cell/Delhi Police registered FIR no. 208/2021 dated 07.08.2021, u/s 170, 384, 386, 388,9, 420, 506, 120B IPC and 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000 against unknown persons, upon the complaint of one Smt. Aditi Shivender Singh. The said complaint pertains to the extortion of money to the tune of Rs.200 Crores. Since the FIR no. 208/2021 contained sections provided under the scheduled offences of part A of PMLA, ED (Delhi Zone Office-II) recorded ECIR no. ECIR/DLZO-II/54/2021 on 08.08.2021 to investigate the offence of money laundering. The prelude to the present ECIR relates to the investigation pertaining to another ECIR/DLZO-II/05/2019 related to Religare Finvest Ltd. During the investigation of the said ECIR, it was noticed that AD Singh made some financial transactions with Aditi Shivender Singh. Based on this, Aditi Shivender Singh was summoned on 17.06. 2021 in case ECIR/DLZO-II/05/2019 and her statement u/s 50 PMLA was recorded and she also tendered her iPhone having IMEI No. 354858096914919. The said phone was sent for forensic analysis to the Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhi Nagar. The analysis of the call data record (CDR) of the her iPhone-X IMEI no. above-mentioned mobile showed multiple calls from the numbers belonging to Union Government Officers and Ministries of the Govt, of India including Home Minster Office as well as PMO etc., were made. These numbers (for the purposes of reference) are 01123386974, 01123383674, 01123438113, 01123013040, 23012613, 01123017256, 01123500000, 01123092548, 23014844, 23013485 and 01123094686. 01123094686, Since these phone numbers pertained to the Union Government, CDRs of these numbers were called and verified. The analysis of the CDR and these numbers showed that the calls on the number of Aditi Singh were not made from the above mentioned numbers. This means that even though the above mentioned numbers were figuring in the CDRs of Aditi Singh but the outgoing calls from these numbers to Aditi Singh were not found in their respective CDRs.
ii. That upon further investigation, it was revealed that these were the spoofed calls made through some application which enable the caller to hide his real number and choose the number that the caller intends to reflect on the screen of the recipient. Further investigation of call log retrieval showed certain telegram calls saved as "111LD" on various dates. During investigation, screenshot of a message exchanged between 111LD and Aditi Singh was found, which was a conversation between Aditi Singh and one Abhinav. The number associated with 111LD was +16692594162. Thereafter, during investigation, Aditi Singh was confronted with phone data and other evidences on which she revealed that she was receiving calls from various Government offices including Law Ministry. It was further revealed that one person Anup Kumar, Union Law Secretary had called her and expressed his intention to resolve the issues related to her husband and family. The caller also revealed to Aditi Singh that he is calling on the instructions of top government authorities and after this, a junior named Abhinav would call her and take the matter forward. Aditi Singh further stated that she was directed to download telegram and Abhinav called her on telegram app. After few calls, Anup Kumar stated that she needed to contribute towards party funds and further that Abhinav intimated that they are willing to accept
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....
At the bail stage, the court is required to consider the prima facie case and is not allowed to meticulously examine the evidence. The court must maintain a delicate balance between judgment of acqui....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of broad probabilities and prima facie determination in granting bail under PMLA, without converting the bail stage into a mini tri....
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.
Bail – Delay and long detention in custody cannot be a ground for grant of bail in cases of money laundering.
(1) Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting economy of country as a whole and ....
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.
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....
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
