2020 (12) TMI 1102 - HC - Money Laundering

Court grants bail under Prevention of Money Laundering Act despite enforcement opposition.

Rajendra Kumar Mishra Versus Union Of India Thru. Assistant Director, E.D.(P.M.L. Act)

The court granted bail to the applicant in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, despite opposition from the Directorate of ... Grant of Bail - allegation that some loan was given by the Bank officials on the basis of forged and fictitious documents - it is evident that the applicant never misused the liberty given by the Directorate of Enforcement - HELD THAT:- Investigation was conducted by the investigating officer of Directorate of Enforcement for a period of about 8 years and it was obligatory on his part to discover all the facts and the evidence against the accused persons. In such circumstances, it is a fit case for bail. Let applicant -Rajendra Kumar Mishra be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond of ₹ 10 lakh and two sureties each of the said amount to the court concerned subject to conditions imposed. Application allowed. Issues:Bail application under Section 3/4 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Applicant falsely implicated - Allegations of providing loans based on forged documents - Applicant's role as Senior Manager Credit in Bank of India - Registration of cases by CBI and Enforcement Directorate - Applicant's cooperation in investigations - Proceedings initiated - Bail rejection by trial court - Total proceeds of crime - Applicant's health conditions - Legal precedents cited - Directorate of Enforcement's opposition to bail - Economic offenses - Duration of investigation - Bail conditions.Detailed Analysis:1. Bail Application & False Implication:The applicant filed a bail application in Case Crime No. 15 of 2019 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, claiming false implication. The applicant, a former Senior Manager Credit at Bank of India, was allegedly involved in providing loans based on forged documents. The applicant's counsel argued for bail citing the applicant's age and previous bail grants in related cases.2. CBI & Enforcement Directorate Cases:The CBI initially registered cases against the applicant and others for financial irregularities in 2007. Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in 2010 under the PML Act, based on the CBI's charge sheet. The applicant cooperated with the investigations, and a complaint was filed in 2018, leading to the present bail application.3. Legal Precedents & Bail Opposition:The applicant's counsel referenced various legal precedents supporting bail in economic offenses. The Directorate of Enforcement opposed bail, highlighting the substantial proceeds of crime and the applicant's alleged role in damaging the economy. The Directorate cited legal judgments to support its opposition to bail.4. Investigation Duration & Bail Grant:The investigation by the Enforcement Directorate spanned about 8 years, during which the applicant cooperated. The court considered the facts, bail orders in related cases, and the applicant's conduct during investigations. The court found the case suitable for bail, noting the lack of direct evidence against the applicant.5. Bail Conditions & Conclusion:The court granted bail to the applicant, requiring a personal bond and sureties. The conditions included non-influence of witnesses, cooperation in the case's speedy disposal, and mandatory court appearances. The court also mandated the verification of the bail order's authenticity from the High Court's official website.In conclusion, the judgment analyzed the bail application in detail, considering the applicant's cooperation, legal precedents, and the Enforcement Directorate's opposition. The court balanced the allegations against the applicant with the lack of direct evidence, leading to the grant of bail with specific conditions to ensure compliance and case progress.