2024 (2) TMI 733 - HC - Money Laundering

Anticipatory bail denied in Rs. 61 crore Bike Bot money laundering scam under Section 45 PMLA 2002

The HC rejected the anticipatory bail application in a money laundering case involving the Bike Bot Scam. The applicant received Rs. 61 crore in company ... Rejection of anticipatory bail - Money Laundering - Bike Bot Scam - Funds were diverted to shell companies for concealing the true purpose of collecting it and for rotation - proceeds of crime - economic offence - trial not joined by applicant despite issuance of summons - HELD THAT:- Admitted case of the applicant is of receipt of Rs. 61 crore in the company account of Bhasin Group from company account of GIPL and Independent TV Ltd., both belong to Sachin Bhati. Subsequently Rs. 25 crore from the same was transferred to the personal account of the applicant on the very next date from the account of Bhasin Group. The applicant has been summoned by the trial court vide order dated 28.05.2022. Since then without proceeding to appear before the court concerned, he has been absconding till date. The said property as stated to have been sold out to GIPL is under attachment by Enforcement agency. In Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others [1985 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court had observed that relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation. It further held that courts must be cautious and circumspect in exercising powers of anticipatory bail as it intrudes the sphere of investigation. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others Vs. Union of India and Others [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] the Apex Court observed we have no hesitation in observing that in whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money-laundering. Looking to the nature of case, gravity of offence, the facts that the present matter relates to an economic offence, the fact that the applicant has not joined the trial court concerned despite issuance of summons to him, the law as laid down by the Apex Court, the fact regarding receipt of money from the companies and transfer of it in his personal account, the magnitude of offence, the fact that the property in question stands attached by the Enforcement authorities as a part of laundered money and the rigours of the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, the applicant being charge sheeted in the predicate offence and the long criminal antecedents of the applicant, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, rejected. Issues Involved:1. Anticipatory Bail Application2. Allegations and Evidence3. Legal Precedents and Statutory ProvisionsSummary:1. Anticipatory Bail Application:The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Sessions Case No. 06/2023 titled 'Directorate of Enforcement vs. Sanjay Bhati & Ors.', under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The applicant also requested interim protection from arrest during the pendency of the application.2. Allegations and Evidence:The case pertains to the 'Bike Bot Scam,' involving multiple FIRs against M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Ltd. (GIPL) and its directors, including the applicant. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) filed an ECIR against the accused for money laundering. The applicant, as the director of Bhasin Group of Companies, allegedly received approximately Rs. 61 crore from GIPL and its sister company, Independent TV Limited. The funds were purportedly diverted to shell companies and used for purchasing properties, which were provisionally attached by the ED. The applicant argued that he was protected by an order from the Apex Court in a related writ petition but simultaneously sought anticipatory bail due to apprehension of arrest.3. Legal Precedents and Statutory Provisions:The court referred to several legal precedents and statutory provisions, including Section 45 of the PMLA, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in money laundering cases. The court highlighted the distinction between anticipatory bail and regular bail, emphasizing that anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The court also noted that economic offences, such as money laundering, require a different approach due to their impact on society and the economy.Conclusion:The court observed that the applicant had not complied with the trial court's summons and had a long criminal history. Given the gravity of the offence, the magnitude of the scam, and the stringent conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA, the court found no merit in granting anticipatory bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.