2023 (3) TMI 585 - HC - Money Laundering

Denial of Anticipatory Bail in PMLA Case Due to Lack of Fulfillment of Section 45 Provisions

The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with a PMLA case, considering the substantial amount involved in alleged money ... Anticipatory bail - anticipatory bail principles comparable to regular bail - limitations on grant of bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA (exceptional cases) - material on record showing proceeds of crime and proprietorship/management as ground to deny bailAnticipatory bail - limitations on grant of bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - material on record showing proceeds of crime and proprietorship/management as ground to deny bail - Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in proceedings under the PMLA was not to be granted to the petitioner. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the material on record and found that proceeds of crime amounting to Rs.141,47,59,798/- had been alleged and that the petitioner had enjoyed the proceeds. The record indicated that the petitioner was proprietor of M/s DJN Commodity and M/s Divya Jyoti Securities, and the petitioner's claim of being only a salaried director was not accepted in view of para 3.10 of the complaint. Reliance on earlier High Court and Supreme Court orders cited by the petitioner was examined: the Punjab and Haryana High Court order in Dalip Singh Mann (2015) and the Supreme Court order in Anamika Nandi were distinguished on their facts (including applicability of the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA and the personal circumstances of petitioners in those cases). The Court applied the principle stated in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary that anticipatory bail is governed by principles substantially similar to regular bail and that limitations imposed by Section 45 of the PMLA cannot be disregarded when considering anticipatory bail. Finding that the conditions and limitations in Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied on the present record and that there existed material implicating the petitioner in money laundering and enjoyment of proceeds, the Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of anticipatory bail. [Paras 6, 7]Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected and petition dismissed.Final Conclusion: Considering the material on record implicating the petitioner in money laundering, the Court held that the conditions and limitations under Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied and, applying the principles governing anticipatory bail as articulated by the Supreme Court, refused to grant anticipatory bail; the petition is dismissed. Issues:1. Anticipatory bail application in connection with a case under PMLA.2. Consideration of previous bail orders in similar cases.3. Interpretation of Section 45 of PMLA for granting anticipatory bail.Analysis:Issue 1: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case under PMLA pending before the Special Judge. The petitioner had been granted regular bail in a previous related offence. The petitioner argued for anticipatory bail based on fulfilling conditions and citing precedents where similar relief was granted.Issue 2: The ED opposed the anticipatory bail application, highlighting the allegations against the petitioner regarding fraudulent activities involving diversion of funds and misrepresentation to investors. Reference was made to a recent Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the stringent criteria for granting anticipatory bail in PMLA cases.Issue 3: The Court analyzed the facts and submissions from both parties. It noted the substantial amount involved in the alleged money laundering and the petitioner's association with the companies under investigation. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding employment status and distinguished previous judgments cited by the petitioner based on the specific circumstances of those cases.The Court ultimately declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, citing the stringent provisions of Section 45 of PMLA and the lack of fulfillment of those conditions by the petitioner. The Court also differentiated the present case from previous judgments where anticipatory bail was granted based on specific factors not present in the petitioner's case. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.