Bail denied in money laundering case involving vehicle purchases and account transfers under Section 45

The HC dismissed the bail application in a money laundering case involving transfer of substantial amounts to multiple accounts and misappropriation through liquid security arrangements. The court found that Section 45's twin conditions for bail were revived after Amendment Act 13 of 2018 cured constitutional defects identified in Nikesh Tarachand Shah. Based on documentary evidence showing the applicant transferred proceeds of crime to various bank accounts and purchased 53 vehicles, the court concluded reasonable grounds existed to believe the applicant was guilty of money laundering and likely to reoffend if granted bail.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application u/s 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Allegations and evidence against the applicant.
3. Applicant's defense and submissions.
4. Legal provisions and precedents considered.
5. Court's decision on the bail application.

Summary:

1. Bail Application u/s 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002:
The applicant sought bail in connection with ECIR No.03 of 2021, registered u/s 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending before the Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-PMLA, Ranchi.

2. Allegations and Evidence Against the Applicant:
The complaint was based on an FIR by the CBI against M/s. Bhanu Construction and others for offences u/s 120-B read with Sections 406, 409, 420 of IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that Rs.100.01 crores were fraudulently transferred to the account of M/s. Bhanu Construction, which was then misappropriated by the applicant, Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, a partner in the firm. The investigation revealed that the applicant transferred the amount to various accounts and used it for business transactions, including purchasing 53 vehicles.

3. Applicant's Defense and Submissions:
The applicant contended that the transfer was due to the negligence of the Deputy Manager, SBI Hatia Branch, and he believed the amount was credited from Nabadurga Construction Pvt. Ltd. He argued that he utilized the money for business purposes under a bona fide belief and made efforts to return the amount. The applicant cited several case laws to support his bail plea, arguing no offence was made out against him.

4. Legal Provisions and Precedents Considered:
The court considered Sections 2(p), 2(y), 3, and 4 of the Act, 2002, and the amended Section 45 of the Act. The court also reviewed judgments from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, including the cases of Nikesh Tarachand Shah, Cheviti Venkanna Yadav, Prakash Gurbaxani, YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, and State Of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal.

5. Court's Decision on the Bail Application:
The court found that the applicant's conduct in transferring the proceeds of the crime to several bank accounts and purchasing vehicles indicated reasonable grounds to believe he was guilty of money laundering. The court concluded that the applicant was likely to commit the offence if released on bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

---