2016 (12) TMI 508 - HC - Money Laundering

Denial of Anticipatory Bail and Gender Disparity in Money Laundering Cases

Surya Sonal Singh, Narendra Mohan Singh, Ankita Singh Versus Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi

The court denied anticipatory bail to two petitioners, directing them to surrender and apply for regular bail, while granting anticipatory bail to one ... Anticipatory bail applications - money laundering - Held that:- Having gone through the scrutiny of the documents produced on behalf of the parties and the pleadings made in the anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners, material produced by the learned standing counsel for Directorate Enforcement, following admitted facts emerges that the defence taken in the instant anticipatory bail applications for grant of anticipatory bail have earlier also been taken in the Cr.M.P. No. 2686 of 2016 for quashing the order taking cognizance by the court below which has not been accepted by this Court that the loan was given by Ankita Singh to his brother Surya Sonal Singh and the said Cr.M.P was dismissed, so taking all these facts and also the fact that the prosecution prima facie has been successful in proving the following facts (i) the predicate crime (ii) tainted property, and the property purchased. Thus we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Surya Sonal Singh and petitioner ­Narendra Mohan Singh. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory is hereby rejected. They are directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from the date of this order and pray for regular bail which shall be considered by the trial court in its own merit. So far anticipatory bail application on behalf of the petitioner­ Ankita Singh is concerned, taking the fact of provision under section 437 Cr.P.C which makes provision for consideration of bail to the person under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm and also the fact that investigation is complete, prosecution report has been submitted, cognizance has been taken, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner ­Ankita Singh Accordingly, petitioner­Ankita Singh in (A.B.A. No.4286 of 2016) is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of her arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of ₹ 25,000/­ (Rupees twenty five thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri B.K. Tiwari, learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi in connection with ECIR/02/PAT/2009/B of 2011, corresponding to ECIR­02/Pat/09/AD(B), subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and also subject to further condition that one of the bailers shall be local resident of Ranchi district and another bailor must be government servant. Issues Involved:1. Anticipatory bail applications for three petitioners.2. Allegations of money laundering and disproportionate assets.3. Validity of transactions and loans reflected in Income Tax Returns.4. Investigation findings by CBI and Directorate of Enforcement.5. Application of Section 24 of the Money Laundering Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Anticipatory Bail Applications for Three Petitioners:The judgment addresses anticipatory bail applications filed by three petitioners apprehending arrest in connection with ECIR/02/PAT/2009/B of 2011 under the PMLA Act, 2002. The applications are heard together and disposed of by a common order.2. Allegations of Money Laundering and Disproportionate Assets:The prosecution alleges that the accused, including a former minister, amassed wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income through corrupt means. The Directorate of Enforcement filed a supplementary complaint under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002, for offenses involving proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 5.83 crores.3. Validity of Transactions and Loans Reflected in Income Tax Returns:The investigation scrutinized the financial transactions and Income Tax Returns (ITRs) of the accused and their associates. It was found that significant cash deposits and loans were not reflected in the ITRs, raising suspicions about the legitimacy of the funds. The defense argued that the transactions were duly reflected in the balance sheets and ITRs, and the loans were genuine.4. Investigation Findings by CBI and Directorate of Enforcement:The CBI and Directorate of Enforcement conducted thorough investigations. The CBI's charge-sheet revealed disproportionate assets acquired by the accused. The Directorate of Enforcement's investigation under PMLA identified additional properties and questioned the legitimacy of the transactions and loans. The defense argued that the CBI did not find any irregularities in the transactions, but the Directorate of Enforcement found discrepancies in the ITRs and bank statements.5. Application of Section 24 of the Money Laundering Act:Section 24 of the Money Laundering Act places the burden of proof on the accused to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved in money laundering. The court found that the defense's explanations were not convincing and that the prosecution had prima facie established the involvement of proceeds of crime in money laundering.Judgment:The court denied anticipatory bail to petitioners Surya Sonal Singh (A.B.A. No. 4278 of 2016) and Narendra Mohan Singh (A.B.A. No. 4285 of 2016), directing them to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and apply for regular bail. However, the court granted anticipatory bail to Ankita Singh (A.B.A. No. 4286 of 2016), considering her status as a woman and the completion of the investigation. She was directed to surrender and furnish a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions including the deposit of her passport and regular court appearances.The judgment emphasizes the thorough scrutiny of financial transactions and the application of legal provisions under the PMLA Act, highlighting the court's reliance on investigative findings and the burden of proof on the accused in money laundering cases.