2023 (12) TMI 1316 - HC - Money Laundering

Regular bail denied in money laundering case for medical admission fraud under Section 45 PMLA

Sandeep Gupta Versus Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA)

The Uttarakhand HC rejected a regular bail application in a money laundering case involving allegations of cheating a complainant by dishonestly inducing ... Money Laundering - Seeking grant of Regular bail - cheating the complainant by dishonestly inducing him in getting admission for his daughter in Post Graduation Course at Himalayan Institute and Hospital Trust, Jolly Grant, Dehradun - HELD THAT:- The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It is the mandate of the Legislature which is required to be followed. The non-obstante clause with which Section 45 of the Act, 2002 starts should be given its due meaning and clearly it is intended to restrict the powers to grant bail. Allegations against the present applicant are not without substance. The allegations are categorical and specific. A definite role has been assigned to the applicant. On perusal of the record, it reveals that serious and grave allegations have been levelled against the applicant. The mandate of the Parliament is that the person accused of the offence under the Act should not be released on bail unless the mandatory conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 are satisfied. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that mandatory conditions, have been satisfied. It is, therefore, not possible for this Court to record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence. The bail application is liable to be rejected. The bail application of the applicant is rejected. Issues Involved:The judgment deals with a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the applicant-accused in connection with a Complaint Case (Special Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2021, bearing ECIR 01/DNSZO/2016) pending before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun. The applicant is in judicial custody since 14.03.2023 for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.Details of the judgment:The facts of the case involve four FIRs registered against the applicant and co-accused persons. The allegations include cheating complainants to secure admissions in medical courses at Himalayan Institute and Hospital Trust, Jolly Grant, Dehradun, by dishonestly inducing them to pay significant amounts of money. The charges include various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), related to cheating and criminal conspiracy.The applicant's counsel argued that there were no allegations of the applicant handling proceeds of crime as required under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The prosecution failed to establish a connection between the applicant and any proceeds of crime. The applicant was willing to submit bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Court.The respondent contended that the applicant played an active role in inducing complainants to secure admissions through misrepresentation and received commissions from them. Statements of victims recorded under the Act detailed how the applicant, along with co-accused, collected funds through criminal activities related to the scheduled offence.The Court noted that the allegations against the applicant were specific and serious, with a definite role assigned to him in the alleged criminal activities. The Court emphasized the stringent conditions for granting bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit further offences while on bail.Ultimately, the Court rejected the bail application, stating that the mandatory conditions for bail under the Act had not been satisfied in this case. The decision to deny bail was made without expressing any views on the merits of the case, and it was clarified that the observations made in the judgment were specific to the bail application and would not impact the ongoing trial.