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 ... Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - money laundering - predicate offences - proceeds of crime - requirements of section 45 of PMLA fulfilled or not - HELD THAT:- The Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that the money laundering amount alleged to be Rs.141,47,59,798/- and proceeds of crime has also been enjoyed by the petitioner. The petitioner was proprietor of M/s DJN Commodity and M/s Divya Jyoti Securities. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not accepted by this Court looking into para 3.10 of the complaint with regard to employment on the post of Director of the said company on salary basis. Thus, there are materials against the petitioner. So far as the order relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Dalip Singh Mann [2015 (10) TMI 2580 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] that was the order of the year 2015 and the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] has been delivered recently in the year 2022. Thus, that judgment is also not helping the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioners of that case were father-in-law and mother-in-law of Jagdish Singh @ Bhola, who was alleged to be the kingpin of drug mafia and considering this aspect of the matter, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners by Punjab and Haryana High Court. The facts of the present case are otherwise not helping the petitioner. Considering that Section 45 of PMLA are not fulfilled by the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Petition 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.