Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Abhishek Jha – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India – Respondent
A.B.A. No. 10195 of 2022
Decided on : 18-05-2023
Anticipatory Bail - Money Laundering - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Section 4) - Summary: The court discussed the prosecution case involving embezzlement of public funds and money laundering, the petitioner's defense regarding the legitimacy of his income, and the legal principles related to unexplained income and proceeds of crime under PMLA. The court rejected the anticipatory bail application based on the nature of the offense, evidence against the petitioner, and the rigors of Section 45 of PMLA.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner who was apprehending arrest in connection with a money laundering offense under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The prosecution alleged that the petitioner's financial fortune increased due to his wife's corrupt practices, while the petitioner claimed that the funds were legitimate income from his job in Australia.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the prosecution case, the petitioner's defense, and the legal principles related to unexplained income and proceeds of crime under PMLA. The court found that the nature of the offense, evidence against the petitioner, and the rigors of Section 45 of PMLA warranted the rejection of the anticipatory bail application.
Issues: The key issues included the source of the petitioner's income, the connection between the funds in question and the alleged criminal activities of the petitioner's wife, and the applicability of legal principles under PMLA to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the nature and ramification of the offense, evidence appearing against the petitioner, the position of the accused to influence/pressurize the witnesses, flight risk, and the criminal antecedent of the petitioner. The court also emphasized the rigors of Section 45 of PMLA in economic offenses.
Final Decision: The court rejected the anticipatory bail application and directed the petitioner to surrender before the Court below within four weeks.
JUDGMENT :
1. Anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with ECIR 03 of 2018 (in ECIR/14/PAT/2012 dated 18.05.2012) for the offence registered under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred PMLA) pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, is pressed into motion.
2. As per the prosecution case, financial fortune of the petitioner shored up after his marriage to Puja Singhal, IAS, and cash started flowing into his Bank accounts, which were crime proceeds of his wife generated by corrupt practices in discharge of her official duties. Contra the case of the petitioner is that they were legitimate income of the petitioner from his job in which he was employed at Australia.
PROSECUTION CASE
3. The petitioner was married to Puja Singhal on 20.06.2011 who was posted earlier as Deputy Commissioner, Khunti during the period 16.02.2009 to 19.07.2010.
4. Large scale embezzlement of public fund was detected and 16 F.I.Rs. were lodged detailed in para 1.6 of the prosecution complaint in the District of Khunti where Puja Singhal was the Deputy Commissioner at the relevant time. The total amount alleged to have been embezzled as per the 16 F.I.Rs. were to the tune of Rs.18,00,76,144/-.
5. In all the 16 F.I.Rs., charge sheets were filed against Ram Binod Prasad Sinha, R.K. Jain & Others.
6. The investigation under PMLA revealed that proceeds of crime in various layers of money laundering were unearthed and properties worth Rs.4.28 Crore including the interest on these properties were attached by issuing two provisional attachment order vide EOA No.2/18 which was duly confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.
7. Search and seizures were conducted under Section 17(1) of PMLA at 24 premises related to accused No.2- Puja Singhal and her associates on 06.05.2022 and further searches at five premises were conducted on 24.05.2022 and searches at two premises were conducted on 25.05.2022 at Ranchi, Chandigarh, Kolkata, Faridabad, Gurugram and Muzaffarpur. During search proceedings, huge cash amounting to Rs.19.76 Crores was recovered and seized. Apart from the aforesaid cash, other document, record, digital devices etc. related to the investigation were found and seized for further investigation.
8. The main case against Puja Singhal, who happens to be the wife of the present petitioner is that during her tenure as Deputy Commissioner in Khunti from 16.02.2009 to 19.07.2010, she connived with the Engineers of the Special Division and District Board, embezzled the said amount of Rs.18.06 Crore. The accused No.7, C.A. Suman Kumar in his statement stated that the majority of cash recovered from his house was of Puja Singhal (A2). She failed to account for legal source regarding the cash deposited in ICICI Bank Account. She purchased Insurance Policies from the cash deposited in the Bank, especially during the period 2008-10. Later, these investments in Insurance were withdrawn by way of premature closure of those policies and she projected them as untainted money.
9. The material appearing against the petitioner is that the Chartered Accountant, Suman Kumar (A 7) has stated in his statement that he was making investment and payments on behalf of Puja Singhal. He further stated in his statement that on couple of occasion on the instruction of Abhishek Jha, he gave cash amount to the tune of Rupees Ten Lakhs for 4-5 times at the cash counter of Pulse Hospital to make false bills to inflate the receipt of the Pulse Hospital. This was basically done to accommodate ill earned money of Puja Singhal in Pulse Hospital and projected the same as profit earned from the hospital. He stated that during the period of last 12 months, he had handed over 40-60 Lakhs to Abhishek Jha on the instruction of Puja Singhal.
10. Commissions were collected from Ram Binod Prasad Sinha, the cash was deposited in the accounts of Puja Singhal and Abhishek Jha.
11. Pulse Hospita
AI
The court emphasized the rigors of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in economic offenses and the need to consider various factors before granting anticipatory bail.
The stringent conditions set by Section 45 of the P.M.L. Act for granting bail in money laundering cases were central to the court's decision.
The mandatory conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for granting anticipatory bail were not satisfied, emphasizing economic offences' serious nature.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion to grant bail to women accused under the first proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
Bail petition – Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously.
The court established that Section 45 of PMLA 2002 applies to the grant of anticipatory bail, with a proviso for leniency towards women, and that the nature of property attachment proceedings does no....
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.
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
