2023 (1) TMI 1349 - HC - Money Laundering

Bail denied for public servant with 900% disproportionate assets in money laundering case under Section 70(2) CrPC

Kishor Meena Versus Union Of India Through Central Bureau Of Investigation And Anti Corruption Branch Bhopal (M.P.)

HC dismissed bail petition in money laundering case where petitioner, a public servant at FCI Bhopal, accumulated property 900% disproportionate to known ... Seeking grant of bail - money laundering - while working as a public servant in the capacity of AG-1, Divisional Office, FCI Bhopal, during the check period from 02.12.2016 to 29.05.2021, amassed property 900% disproportionate to his known sources of income - HELD THAT:- Citing several earlier judgments in P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court observed that power under Section 438 of CrPC is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind. Repelling the submission that anticipatory bail is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and its denial would amount to denial of the right conferred upon under the said Article, the Apex Court stated that 'We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. Coming back to the present case, it is observed that conduct of the petitioner shows that he has deliberately disobeyed the order of the Court and intentionally, willfully and purposely avoided his appearance before the trial Court. The reason assigned by him for his non-appearance lacks bona fide. His conduct speaks loudly and clearly that he is avoiding his presence and is not cooperating with the trial. He is trying to make the straight path crooked to achieve his object to somehow get bail under the cover of a petition under Section 482 of CrPC by avoiding the jurisdictional Bench which refused to accede to his similar prayer. Such practices malign the noble image of the great institution and spread an impression that by twisting and turning the law, a desired lousy and atrocious result can be obtained. It is further observed that even lenient view taken by the trial Court to facilitate the petitioner to appear before it by keeping the arrest warrant issued against him at abeyance could not mend him to honour the process of the Court. Taking into consideration the fact that despite ample opportunities being given, the petitioner has not bothered to appear before the trial Court. He defied the direction of the Court knowingly and willfully. No reason has been demonstrated to show that the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the record or suffers from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety so as to invite our interference in the orders impugned. Thus, there are no error being committed by the trial Court in rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 70(2) of CrPC. Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner.2. Petitioner's application for exemption from appearance.3. Petitioner's request for bail under Section 482 of CrPC.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Arrest Warrant:The petitioner challenged the arrest warrant issued by the Special Judge (for CBI cases), Bhopal, dated 22.08.2022, on the grounds of non-appearance despite repeated summons. The trial court issued the warrant as the petitioner failed to appear on multiple occasions, citing unsubstantiated reasons such as illness and visiting his sister in Punjab. The court found these reasons not bona fide and observed that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding court proceedings. Despite the trial court's leniency in keeping the arrest warrant at abeyance, the petitioner did not honor the court's directions, leading to the warrant's issuance.2. Petitioner's Application for Exemption from Appearance:The petitioner's application for exemption from appearance was dismissed by the trial court, which found the reasons for non-appearance unconvincing and lacking bona fide. The petitioner failed to demonstrate how the trial court's observations were absurd, perverse, illegal, incorrect, or inappropriate. The court noted that the petitioner had been avoiding appearance for over a year, which halted the trial. The trial court's dismissal of the exemption application was upheld, as the petitioner did not provide any cogent evidence to support his reasons for non-appearance.3. Petitioner's Request for Bail under Section 482 of CrPC:The petitioner sought bail through a petition under Section 482 of CrPC, despite not referring to the relevant provisions for bail or filing under Section 438 of CrPC. The court emphasized that specific provisions for bail exist and cannot be bypassed using inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Panful Nessa v. Mohd. Miraj Ali, which disapproved granting bail under inherent jurisdiction. The court reiterated that bail applications should be considered based on established principles, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment, and the accused's conduct. The petitioner's conduct of avoiding court appearance and attempting to secure bail indirectly through Section 482 of CrPC was condemned. The court concluded that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it, directing the petitioner to appear before the trial court within a week to proceed with the trial.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, finding no error in the trial court's issuance of the arrest warrant and rejection of the exemption application. The court also refused to grant bail under Section 482 of CrPC, emphasizing adherence to established legal principles and condemning the petitioner's conduct. The petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court to facilitate the trial's continuation.