2023 (3) TMI 588 - HC - Money Laundering

Bail granted under PMLA with strict conditions for trial compliance.

The court granted bail to the applicant under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), considering the applicant's cooperation, the duration ... Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - predicate offences - it is alleged that the present applicant has cheated so many persons and after his resignation from the Company, other persons, who were Directors of the Company, started cheating the people at the behest of the present applicant - rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA. HELD THAT:- There is no complaint of the E.D. that the present applicant did not cooperate in the investigation and after completion of the investigation, the prosecution complaint has been filed on 24.05.2019 and learned trial court has taken cognizance on 23.09.2019. At the time of filing prosecution complaint or taking cognizance, the E.D. has not requested before the learned trial court for taking custody of the applicant, however, the custody of the application has been taken on 01.09.2022 without assigning any reason and reason to believe as to why the custody of the present applicant would be required after four years from filing the ECIR. It has been noted that more than four years' period has passed since the present applicant is in jail and the maximum punishment under the offences of PMLA is seven years; so, in that way, the applicant has already served more than half punishment. Undoubtedly, there are some more cases against the present applicant wherein the FIRs have been registered under various sections of Indian Penal Code wherein trial would go and the outcome of the trial proceedings in all the predicate offences would impact the proceedings of E.D. inasmuch as the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, [[2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT]], has held that if any accused person is discharged or acquitted in the predicate offence, he may not be prosecuted under the PMLA. Rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- The present applicant has served more than half punishment, has not misused the process of law and appeared before the E.D. on the summons and about three years have passed since filing of the charge sheet and there is no likelihood of the trial proceedings to be concluded with expedition, therefore, in view of para-86 of the dictum of Apex Court in re; Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, [[2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT]], whereby the Apex Court has observed that more the rigour, quicker the adjudication ought to be. So the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA are satisfied. Let applicant- Rajesh Kumar Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid complaint case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the conditions imposed - application allowed. Issues Involved:1. Bail application under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).2. Judicial custody and duration of imprisonment.3. Compliance with Section 45 of the PMLA.4. Previous bails granted in predicate offences.5. Arguments regarding the necessity and timing of the applicant's custody by the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.).6. Conditions for granting bail.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Bail Application under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA):The applicant sought bail in Complaint Case No.110 of 2019, Session Case No.722 of 2022, under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA. The bail application was filed in the context of the applicant's involvement in predicate offences under Sections 419, 420 & 406 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Mau, District- Mau.2. Judicial Custody and Duration of Imprisonment:The applicant has been in jail since 22.02.2019 for predicate offences and was taken into custody by the E.D. on 01.09.2022. The applicant has been in judicial custody for more than four years. The maximum punishment under the PMLA is seven years, and the applicant has already served more than half of this period.3. Compliance with Section 45 of the PMLA:The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant has served more than half of the maximum punishment and has not misused the process of law. The court noted that the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA are satisfied, considering the applicant's cooperation and the delay in trial proceedings. The court referenced the Apex Court's dictum in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, emphasizing the need for quicker adjudication in cases with rigorous provisions.4. Previous Bails Granted in Predicate Offences:The applicant has been granted bail in all 13 predicate offences. The court noted that the applicant appeared before the E.D. when summoned and cooperated with the investigation. The E.D. did not arrest the applicant immediately after lodging the ECIR on 05.09.2018, indicating no immediate need for custody.5. Arguments Regarding the Necessity and Timing of the Applicant's Custody by the E.D.:The E.D. took custody of the applicant on 01.09.2022, despite the applicant being in judicial custody since 22.02.2019. The court questioned the necessity and timing of this custody, as the E.D. had not found it appropriate to arrest the applicant earlier. The court found no cogent reasons for the delayed custody by the E.D.6. Conditions for Granting Bail:The court allowed the bail application with specific conditions: - The applicant must not seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence. - The applicant must remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. - The applicant must not misuse the liberty of bail, and in case of default, the trial court may proceed against him under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. - The applicant must remain present in person for key trial dates. - The applicant must not leave India without prior permission from the court.Conclusion:The court granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing the applicant's cooperation, the duration of custody already served, and the need for quicker adjudication in cases under special acts like the PMLA. The court imposed specific conditions to ensure the applicant's presence and compliance during the trial.