Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.
Sri Hemant Soren, S/o Sri Shibu Soren – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
B.A. No. 4892 of 2024
Decided on : 28-06-2024
[BAIL] - [MONEY LAUNDERING] - [PMLA 2002, Sections 2(1)(u), 2(1)(v), 3, 45, 50] - [The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, particularly focusing on the definitions of 'proceeds of crime' and 'property', the offense of money laundering, and the conditions for bail under Section 45. The court interpreted that for a property to be considered 'proceeds of crime', it must be derived from a scheduled offense. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish a connection between the accused and the alleged proceeds of crime, and that mere possession does not constitute a scheduled offense. The court ultimately found that the petitioner had reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty of the charges, leading to the decision to grant bail.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Hemant Soren, sought bail while in custody for alleged money laundering under the PMLA, 2002, related to fraudulent land acquisition involving government officials. The Enforcement Directorate claimed he was part of a syndicate that tampered with government records to acquire land illegally. The petitioner denied the allegations, asserting that he had no ownership or possession of the disputed land.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence presented by the Enforcement Directorate, including statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, and found that the prosecution had not established a direct link between the petitioner and the alleged proceeds of crime. The court noted that the evidence was circumstantial and did not conclusively prove the petitioner’s involvement in money laundering.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was guilty of money laundering under the PMLA, 2002, and whether the conditions for granting bail under Section 45 of the PMLA were satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution must demonstrate a clear connection between the accused and the proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offense. The court emphasized that the mere possession of property does not constitute a scheduled offense, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner, concluding that there were reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty of the offense charged under the PMLA, 2002.
JUDGMENT :
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.
Heard Mr. Kapil Sibal and Miss Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsels for the petitioner and Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the Enforcement Directorate.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in this application as he is in custody in connection with ECIR Case No. 06/2023, arising out of ECIR/RNZO/25/2023 dated 26.06.2023, registered u/s 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as PMLA, 2002) punishable u/s 4 of PMLA, 2002 pending before the Court of Sri Rajiv Ranjan, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.
3. A prosecution complaint under the PMLA, 2002 was instituted being ECIR Case No. 06/2023 against the present petitioner (Hemant Soren), Bhanu Pratap Prasad, Raj Kumar Pahan, Hilariyas Kachhap and Binod Singh and the background for sharing information u/s 66(2) of the PMLA, 2002 reveals that during investigation in another case being ECIR No. RNZO/18/2022 into the matter of fraudulent acquisition of land which was in possession of Ministry of Defence, Government of India, having area 4.45 acres at Morabadi, Ranchi it came to light that a group of private persons in connivance with government officials including the Ex-Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Chhavi Ranjan and Bhanu Pratap Prasad (Revenue Sub-Inspector, Circle Office, Baragain, Ranchi) were part of a land grabbing syndicate and was involved in corrupt practices which included acquiring properties on the basis of false deeds, falsification of Government records, tampering with original revenue documents etc. to facilitate private persons to acquire landed properties in a fraudulent manner. During investigation a survey was initially conducted at Circle Office, Baragain, Ranchi on 09.02.2023, in which, few original records kept in custody of Bhanu Pratap Prasad were verified and falsification and tampering in the registers were identified. It has been alleged that Bhanu Pratap Prasad was involved in corrupt practices and had been a party with several persons involved in acquisition of properties and on a raid conducted at several premises including the rented premises of Bhanu Pratap Prasad eleven trunks of voluminous property documents along with seventeen original registers (Register-II) were seized from his possession. Since the matter was related to forgery with the revenue records by a government official the information was shared with the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand and accordingly Sadar P.S. Case No. 272/2023 was registered on a written complaint of Manoj Kumar, Circle Officer, Baragain Anchal. It has been alleged that the registers contain reference to several properties which have been acquired in an illegal manner including the reference of properties measuring 8.86 acres at Shanti Nagar, Baragain, Bariatu Road (near Lalu Khatal) illegally acquired and possessed by the petitioner.
The prosecution complaint under the PMLA, 2002 further reveals that the seventeen registers seized from Bhanu Pratap Prasad were examined and explanation u/s 50 PLMA, 2002 was sought from Bhanu Pratap Prasad which further led to the identification of tampering in the said original records aimed at extending illegal benefits to other persons and during searches on 13.04.2023 in ECIR/RNZO/18/2022, handwritten diaries were also seized from the possession of other persons namely, Md. Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmad and others who were his associates. In the diaries cash payment to Bhanu Pratap Prasad was mentioned by his associates and in the cash transaction details in respect of property measuring 4.83 acres situated at Plot Nos. 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 72 and 73, Khata No. 53, Mouza Gari, Baragain Anchal, Ranchi two false deeds, one of the year 1940 and the other of the year 1974 were prepared by the associates of Bhanu Pratap Prasad. It has been stated that the land measuring 4.83 acres is a portion of 37.10 acres of land which was purchased from Catholic Credit
The court established that for a property to be classified as 'proceeds of crime' under the PMLA, it must be directly linked to a scheduled offense, and mere possession does not suffice to establish ....
Bail petition – Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously.
The Enforcement Directorate has broad powers under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act to summon individuals based on reasonable belief of involvement in money laundering, supported by evidence of....
(1) Bail – Predicate offence – Even under PMLA governing principle is that “Bail is Rule and Jail is Exception”.(2) When accused is in custody under PMLA irrespective of case for which he is under cu....
Money laundering charges under PMLA require clear evidence linking individuals to a scheduled offence, which was absent in the petitioners' case, leading to quashing of proceedings.
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.
The court emphasized that in money laundering cases, the burden is on the accused to prove absence of mens rea, and economic crimes warrant stricter scrutiny in bail considerations.
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
