2018 (5) TMI 2172 - HC - Indian Laws

Delhi HC grants bail in demonetization money laundering case citing minimal role and documentary evidence

Rajesh Jain Versus State

Rajesh Jain Versus State - TMI Issues:Regular bail application in FIR involving multiple sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.Analysis:Issue 1: Regular Bail ApplicationThe petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 205/2016 registered at PS Crime Branch for various offenses under Sections 406/409/420/468/471/188/120B IPC, along with Sections 467/109/201/34 IPC and Section 7/8/11/12/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case involved a conspiracy to convert demonetized currency into new notes for illegal gains.Issue 2: Allegations and ChargesThe FIR alleged a conspiracy involving Raj Kumar Goel, Ashish Kumar (Bank Manager), a Chartered Accountant, and a mediator to convert black money into new currency. The accused deposited old currency in bank accounts, issued demand drafts, and opened accounts with forged documents, misappropriating around Rs. 25 crores post-demonetization. The charge sheet implicated several accused, including the petitioner, Rajesh Jain, in transferring significant sums between various firms during the demonetization period.Issue 3: Defense ArgumentsThe petitioner's defense contended that he had no role in the initial conspiracy and was not a beneficiary of the transactions. The defense highlighted that the evidence was documentary and that the petitioner had no influence on witnesses. It was argued that the petitioner's involvement was limited to transferring funds between certain firms, with no personal benefit derived. The defense emphasized that the petitioner's role surfaced only in the second supplementary charge sheet.Issue 4: Prosecution's OppositionThe prosecution opposed the bail application, asserting the petitioner's involvement in a larger conspiracy to convert demonetized currency into legal tender. The prosecution presented a flow chart detailing the alleged transactions, claiming that a significant amount was transferred to the petitioner's firms from accounts associated with the conspiracy. The prosecution argued that the petitioner played a role in transferring funds to fulfill liabilities of other firms involved in the scheme.Issue 5: Court's DecisionAfter considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Court granted bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the evidence was documentary in nature and that the trial was likely to be prolonged. The Court directed the petitioner to furnish a personal bond and surety, with conditions to not leave the country without court permission and to inform the court of any change in residential address.ConclusionThe Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in the complex case involving multiple sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on the nature of evidence, the limited role attributed to the petitioner, and the likelihood of a protracted trial.