Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Kirti Nath Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement, Govt. Of India – Respondent
Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.2141 of 2023
Decided on : 06-10-2023
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Anticipatory Bail - Sections 3/4 of PMLA - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which deal with the offence of money laundering and the punishment for the same. The court considered the applicant's age, lack of criminal history, and the timeline of events leading to the case in granting anticipatory bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case related to embezzlement of public money and misappropriation causing financial loss to a bank. The Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint under Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the applicant for his alleged involvement in fraudulent transactions of banking funds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant's age, lack of criminal history, and the timeline of events leading to the case warranted granting anticipatory bail. The court considered the lack of reasonable apprehension of the applicant influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail considering the allegations against him and the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the applicant's age, lack of criminal history, and the timeline of events leading to the case, which indicated no reasonable apprehension of the applicant influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, subject to certain conditions.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri S. P. Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement (E.D.) and perused the records.
2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 2 of 2018, ECIR No. 07/VSI/2012, Filing No. 1602 of 2023, UPLKO010018442023, S.T. No. 278/2023, under Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 29.05.2010, the Regional Manager, Ballia Gramin Bank, Ballia had sent a complaint against one Chandra Prakash Singh, Branch Manager, Ballia, Gramin Bank and some unknown persons, stating that when Chandra Prakash Singh was posted as Branch Manager during the period December 2008 to December 2009, he had embezzled public money for his personal gain and had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1.60 Crores (approximately) and had thereby caused financial loss to the bank. In furtherance of the aforesaid complaint, a First Information Report bearing number RC 0062010A0017 under Sections 120B, 409, 420 I.P.C. read with Sections 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed on 11.06.2010 against Chandra Prakash Singh and other unknown persons. The matter was investigated by CBI/ACB and on 30.06.2011, a charge-sheet was forwarded alleging commission of offences under Sections 120 B, 409, 477-A of the Indian Panel Code read with Section 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offence under Sections 409 and 477A IPC and Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against several persons, including the applicant, alleging that Chandra Prakash Singh had caused wrongful loss of Rs. 56,47,592/-to the bank in criminal conspiracy with the applicant and certain other persons. The charge-sheet was submitted on 04.07.2011
4. Subsequently on 06.01.2012 the E.D. registered ECIR No.0/VSI.2012, investigated the matter, recorded statements of several persons, including the applicant, and filed a complaint against five persons, including the applicant, on 16.09.2017 in the Court of Special Judge, PMLA, Allahabad, which has subsequently been transferred to Lucknow. Regarding the applicant, it is stated in the complaint that he had posted the manifold in respect of loan account Nos. 839, 841, 842 and 843, that these manifolds had been issued from Dataha and were used to close the loan account Nos. 839, 841, 842 and 843 on 04.12.2008. No account opening forms and no KYC documents were available in respect of the aforesaid loan accounts. The complaint states that the applicant knowingly assisted co-accused Chandra Prakash Singh in his wrongdoings and allowed him to use his ID and password for fraudulent transactions of banking funds and thereby committed offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’).
5. The trial court took cognizance of the case and summoned the accused persons by means of an order dated 02.04.2018.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the applicant is a 65 years old innocent person, who has no criminal history, besides scheduled offence. The applicant was dismissed from the service in the year 2012.
7. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith a copy of order sheet of the trial court, which indicates that summons of the complaint case were not served on the applicant till 09.06.2022 and it is recorded in the order dated 07.07.2022 that the summons had been served on the accused persons. Thereafter, bailable warrants were issued against the applicant but subsequently the case was transferred from Allahabad to Lucknow, where it was registered on 17.01.2023.
8. The applicant claims that upon coming to know about the proceedings, he appeared before the trial court through his counsel on 19.04.2023 and exemption of his personal a
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may grant anticipatory bail based on the lack of reasonable apprehension of the applicant influencing witnesses or tampering with ev....
The court considered the personal circumstances of the applicant, including age and health condition, in granting interim anticipatory bail.
The court's decision was influenced by the applicant's age, health condition, and the absence of allegations of recovery of proceeds of crime, leading to the grant of interim anticipatory bail.
The discretionary nature of approaching the High Court or the Court of Session for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, the importance of personal liberty, and the presumption of innocence ....
The High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Sessions to entertain an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the CrPC. The twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA are....
The provisions of S.45 of the PMLA do not apply to anticipatory bail proceedings, allowing for bail grants based on case-specific circumstances.
The gravity of economic offences, potential influence on witnesses and evidence, and the failure to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA were central to the court's decis....
The mandatory conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for granting anticipatory bail were not satisfied, emphasizing economic offences' serious nature.
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
