2020 (7) TMI 581 - HC - Money Laundering

Petitioner Denied Bail for Money Laundering Offenses

Vidyut Kumar Sarkar Versus The State of Bihar and Ors.

Vidyut Kumar Sarkar Versus The State of Bihar and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Allegations of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).2. Petitioner's involvement and period of incarceration.3. Applicability and interpretation of Section 45 of the PMLA.4. Consideration of bail in economic offences.Detailed Analysis:1. Allegations of Money Laundering under the PMLA:The petitioner is in custody in connection with Special Trial No. (PMLA) 4 of 2016 for offences under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. The allegation is that the petitioner opened 22 bank accounts using forged identification documents. The case is an extension of EOU Case No. 13 of 2013, where approximately five crores were transferred into various fake accounts from government funds by cloning cheques issued by the State authorities. The specific allegation against the petitioner involves about nine lakhs.2. Petitioner's Involvement and Period of Incarceration:The petitioner has been in custody since 03.03.2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if convicted, the sentence would range between three to seven years, and the petitioner has already served more than three years and three months. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s involvement is limited to opening accounts in his own name using forged documents and that he is currently on bail in a similar case instituted by the CBI in Assam.3. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 45 of the PMLA:The learned ASG emphasized the national importance of the PMLA, which aims to safeguard the economic fabric of the country. He argued that the petitioner is a member of a group involved in cloning government cheques and transferring funds into various accounts, amounting to money laundering. The petitioner’s statement under Section 50 of the Act, which is admissible as evidence, indicates his active involvement in the crime. The ASG highlighted that Section 45 of the Act requires the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The petitioner’s involvement in similar offences in other states undermines this requirement.4. Consideration of Bail in Economic Offences:The court examined various precedents and legal provisions, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s ruling in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, which declared Section 45(1) of the PMLA unconstitutional as it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. However, subsequent amendments and the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in P Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement reinstated certain conditions for bail under the PMLA. The court also considered the serious nature of economic offences, which have deep-rooted conspiracies and involve significant public funds, as emphasized in multiple Supreme Court judgments.Judgment:The court found that the petitioner faces serious allegations of defrauding the public exchequer and has admitted his role under Section 50 of the Act. Given the gravity of the offence and the petitioner's involvement in similar crimes in other states, the court was not inclined to grant bail. The application was dismissed, but the court directed the lower court to expedite the trial and conclude it within 12 months. The court clarified that any opinion expressed was prima facie and tentative, solely for considering the bail application, and would not prejudice the petitioner in the trial.