2021 (3) TMI 894 - HC - Money Laundering

Court grants pre-arrest bail to couple in money-laundering case, emphasizing presumption of innocence and fundamental rights.

Suresh Kumar Rekhi and another Versus Union of India and another

The court granted pre-arrest bail to a Deputy General Manager and his wife, who were booked for offenses under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, ... Grant of Anticipatory Bail - accumulation of huge wealth disproportionate to known sources of income - proceeds of crime - HELD THAT:- Though the respondents have made grievance that they have not been able to get desired cooperation from the petitioners, yet it is on record that they have attended the investigation as and when required by respondent No.2. The grievance of respondent No.2, is however, that though the petitioners are complying with the directions and attending the investigation, yet they are not disclosing the information with regard to various documents and the properties. Be that as it may, ECIR in the case was registered on 21.02.2020 and it was with respect to the ‘proceeds of crime’ unearthed by ACB after thorough investigation. More than one year has passed and the investigation in the offences under PMLA is going on. Arrest of accused may be required for effective investigation of crime, but the same cannot be a substitute of post trial punishment. After all, an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The golden principle is part of criminal jurisprudence of all civilized nations including India. Stringent conditions of bail under Section 45 of the Act have already been declared ultra vires. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail subject to the conditions: imposed. Issues:1. Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Deputy General Manager and his wife booked for offenses under Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.2. Allegations of accumulating disproportionate assets, sale of properties, and cooperation with investigating authorities.3. Opposition to bail plea citing misuse of position, lack of cooperation, and seriousness of economic offenses.4. Legal arguments based on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing strictness in granting bail for economic offenses.5. Granting of pre-arrest bail considering circumstances, lack of custodial interrogation, and fundamental rights.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioners, a Deputy General Manager and his wife, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. due to being booked for offenses under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, related to allegations of accumulating disproportionate assets. The Anti Corruption Bureau had registered a case against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate initiated proceedings under PMLA based on the assets uncovered during the investigation.2. The respondents opposed the bail plea, alleging that the petitioners had amassed wealth through corrupt practices and were not fully cooperating with the investigation. The petitioners claimed cooperation but expressed apprehension of arrest. The court noted the seriousness of economic offenses and the need for strictness in granting bail, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments.3. The court considered the lack of custodial interrogation of the petitioners despite the ongoing investigation and the absence of a compelling need for their arrest. It emphasized the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the importance of protecting fundamental rights, including the right against self-incrimination. The court also addressed the stringent bail conditions under the Act and the need for a balance between effective investigation and individual rights.4. The court found the comparison with previous economic offense cases cited by the respondents to be misplaced, as the current case primarily involved allegations of disproportionate assets. Given the circumstances and the petitioners' history of cooperation without prior arrest or custodial interrogation, the court granted pre-arrest bail with specific conditions to ensure compliance and cooperation with the investigation.5. In conclusion, the court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, considering the lack of prior custodial interrogation, the nature of the allegations, and the fundamental rights at stake. The court imposed conditions such as furnishing personal bonds, cooperation with the investigation, restrictions on travel, and non-tampering with witnesses to ensure compliance and protect the integrity of the investigation process.