Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Rajkumari – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi – Respondent
A.B.A. Nos. 7821, 7842 of 2023
Decided On : 12-04-2024
[PRE-ARREST BAIL] - [MONEY LAUNDERING] - [Sections 3, 4, 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] - [The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), particularly Sections 3 and 4, which define the offence of money laundering and its penalties. It emphasized the broad interpretation of 'proceeds of crime' under Section 2(1)(u) and the mandatory conditions for bail under Section 45, which includes the necessity for the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit further offences. The court also highlighted the discretion afforded to it under the proviso to Section 45 regarding women and infirm individuals, clarifying that this does not guarantee bail but allows for judicial discretion based on the case's specifics.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Rajkumari and Genda Ram, sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of money laundering under the PMLA. The case stemmed from an investigation into the activities of Veerendra Kumar Ram, a public servant accused of accepting bribes and laundering the proceeds through various bank accounts, including those of his family members. The Enforcement Directorate alleged that the petitioners knowingly assisted in concealing and using the proceeds of crime derived from their husband's illegal activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was substantial evidence indicating the petitioners' involvement in money laundering activities. It noted that the funds credited to their accounts were derived from illegal commissions received by Veerendra Kumar Ram. The court concluded that the petitioners had not sufficiently demonstrated their innocence or lack of involvement in the alleged crimes, thus justifying the denial of anticipatory bail.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the petitioners could be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, considering the allegations of their involvement in money laundering, and whether the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA applied to them, particularly the conditions for bail and the applicability of the proviso for women and infirm individuals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the provisions of the PMLA, especially Section 45, impose strict conditions for granting bail in money laundering cases. It emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the accused to demonstrate their innocence. The court also clarified that the discretion to grant bail to women or infirm individuals under the proviso to Section 45 is not absolute and must be exercised judiciously based on the facts of the case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applications for anticipatory bail, concluding that the petitioners had not met the necessary criteria to warrant such relief given the serious nature of the allegations and the evidence presented against them.
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
1. Since both these applications are arising out of the common ECIR therefore with the consent of the parties disposed of by this common order.
Prayer
1.1 The instant applications have been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail in ECIR Case No. 2 of 2023 arising out of ECIR-RNZO/16/2020 dated 17.09.2020 registered for the offence under Sections 3 punishable under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII-cum-Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi.
Case of the Prosecution
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was initiated by recording the ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020 dated 17.09.2020 against the accused persons on the basis of information received from FIR No. 13/2019 dated 13.11.2019 registered by the ACB, Jamshedpur.
3. Subsequently the Final Report has been filed by the investigating agency bearing no. 01/2020 dated 11.01.2020 under Section 120-B and 201 IPC and under Section 7 (b) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against the accused persons, namely, Alok Ranjan and Suresh Prasad Verma.
4. Further, in course of search proceeding conducted in relation to the instant case at different places under Section 17 PML Act to investigate the role of the accused persons and their close associates, it is found that part of the proceeds of crime acquired in the form of commission/bribe in lieu of allotment of tenders by the accused Veerendra Kumar Ram, a public servant. The said bribe money was getting routed to the bank accounts of family members of Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of bank accounts of Delhi based CA Mukesh Mittal 's employees/relatives.
5. It is also ascertained that Veerendra Kumar Ram used to give cash to Mukesh Mittal who with the help of other entry providers used to take entries in the bank accounts of his employees and relatives and then such fund was transferred by Mukesh Mittal into the bank accounts of the co-accused Rajkumari (wife of Veerendra Kumar Ram) and Genda Ram (father of Veerendra Kumar Ram). Both are the petitioners herein.
6. Further, it is also ascertained that some bank accounts opened (at Delhi) on the basis of forged documents were also being used in such routing of funds. Therefore, findings related to such routing of funds were shared with the Delhi Police u/s 66(2) of the PMLA by the I.O. Further, on the basis of the information shared U/s 66(2) of PMLA, 2002, an FIR No. 22/2023, was registered by Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Delhi against (i) Veerendra Kumar Ram, (ii) Mukesh Mittal and (iii) unknown Others under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 474, 476, 484 and 120-B of IPC, 1860, and Section 7 and 5 of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act; 2017.
7. The prosecution complaint shows that various records, documents, digital devices, cash, jewellery, vehicles were recovered and seized during course of search conducted on 21.02.2023 and during investigation they were found accumulated through proceeds of crime.
8. Accordingly, prosecution has submitted prosecution complaint in the matter and based upon that cognizance has been taken on 29.04.2023 for the offence u/s 3 and u/s 4 of PML Act, 2002 against the present petitioners and others.
9. There are specific allegations against the petitioner/accused namely Rajkumari that she knowingly assisted to her husband who is co-accused to purchase immovable properties at New Delhi in her name and the purchase consideration was paid from the proceeds of crime generated by her husband Veerendra Kumar Ram.
10. Against the petitioner/accused namely Genda Ram there is specific allegation that he knowingly assisted his son Veerendra Kumar Ram who is co-accused to purchase immovable properties at New Delhi in his own name to the tune of Rs. 22.5 Crore from the commission/bribe amount, which was acquired by his son Veer
The judgment establishes that in cases of money laundering under the PMLA, the conditions for granting anticipatory bail are stringent, requiring the accused to prove their innocence, and that the co....
(1) Grant of bail – Consideration of two conditions mentioned in Section 45 is mandatory and while considering bail application, rigours of Section 45 have to be reckoned by court to uphold objective....
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....
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....
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 conditions for granting bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are mandatory, requiring the court to be satisfied of the accused's non-guilt and lack of likelihood to commit further of....
The court's decision highlighted the lack of objective satisfaction about the petitioner's guilt, the divergent views expressed by the High Courts and the Supreme Court, and the personal liberty of t....
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
