TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bail denied after petitioner sold attached property, violated anticipatory-bail conditions and was declared a proclaimed offender</h1> HC dismissed the petition for regular bail in a money-laundering prosecution, finding the petitioner willfully violated conditions of previously granted ... Money Laundering - Seeking grant of regular bail - violation of conditions on which anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner - only plea taken by the petitioner in the whole petition is that the petitioner has no intentions to violate the conditions stipulated in the order - plea of ignorance due to illiteracy is taken - HELD THAT:- The plea taken by the petitioner is not believable and is not credible, since sequence of events mentioned, shows the conduct of the petitioner. Had he genuinely been unaware of the conditional order issued by this Court on 28.02.2017, when pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner, he would have sold the entire property. A bare perusal of the record would reveals that the Provisional Attachment Order No. 04/2015 was passed on 17.12.2005 wherein the identified properties to be attached were specifically mentioned. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued the notice to evict the properties under sub section 4 of Section 8 of PMLA Act. The record further reveals that the petitioner filed an appeal against the attachment order wherein the properties are mentioned. Thus, the petitioner was well aware of all the properties, which were attached by the Enforcement Directorate including the one which he has now sold. Thus, he cannot take the plea of ignorance due to illiteracy. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has willfully violated the conditions stipulated in the order dated 28.02.2017 passed in CRM-M-42455-2016. He was also declared a Proclaimed Offender on 28.05.2021. There are serious allegations against the petitioner and if the concession of regular bail is granted to him, there is an apprehension that he would again violate the conditions and will try to hamper the trial as well. Also the 2nd regular bail petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, since no new exculpatory facts have arisen but a perusal of reply dated 09.03.2023 shows that there are inculpatory facts. The regular bail petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) where provisional attachment of immovable properties has been effected and later confirmed, but the petitioner sold two such properties. 2. Whether the petitioner's asserted illiteracy and alleged absence of mens rea for selling attached properties can negate a finding of willful violation of bail conditions and attachment orders for purposes of bail. 3. Whether the petitioner's earlier grant and subsequent cancellation of pre-arrest bail, the declaration as a proclaimed offender, and the pendency of related proceedings (appeal against attachment, FIR in respect of sale) constitute sufficient grounds to refuse subsequent applications for regular bail. 4. Whether a second regular-bail petition is maintainable/entitled to consideration when no new exculpatory facts have been placed on record and, conversely, inculpatory facts have emerged. 5. Whether the twin conditions/limitations under the PMLA (as articulated by Section 45 and related statutory scheme: provisional attachment under Section 5, notice/eviction under Section 8(4), confirmation by Adjudicating Authority and appellate remedy) restrict judicial discretion to grant bail in the facts of this case. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Entitlement to regular bail where attached properties were sold Legal framework: The grant of bail in criminal cases is governed by Section 439 Cr.P.C.; proceedings under PMLA involve provisional attachment of properties (Section 5), notice/eviction powers (Section 8(4)), confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority and appellate remedy before the Tribunal. Conditions of pre-arrest bail may include non-disposal of attached assets. Precedent Treatment: No external judicial precedents were relied upon or distinguished; the Court proceeded on statutory scheme and the facts and orders on record. Interpretation and reasoning: The record establishes that a provisional attachment order specifically identifying properties was passed and later confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority; the petitioner had notice of the attachment (including filing an appeal wherein those properties were listed). Despite such notice and bail conditions prohibiting sale/disposing of attached properties, the petitioner sold two identified properties. The Court finds this conduct inconsistent with compliance required by the bail conditions and the statutory scheme for protection of attached assets in PMLA prosecutions. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a petitioner subject to PMLA provisional attachment and bail conditions disposes of properties known to be attached/identified, such conduct constitutes willful violation of bail conditions and justifies refusal of regular bail. Obiter - none material on this point beyond application to facts. Conclusion: The sale of attached properties, despite knowledge and procedural avenues pursued, is a decisive factor against grant of regular bail. Issue 2 - Effect of illiteracy and absence of mens rea on willful violation finding Legal framework: Criminal mens rea and willfulness are relevant to determining culpability; however, compliance with court-imposed bail conditions and statutory attachment orders is an objective requirement not excused solely by asserted illiteracy. Precedent Treatment: No precedents cited; the Court applied common-sense evaluation of credibility and contemporaneous acts (appeal filed, notices received) to test the veracity of the illiteracy claim. Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner asserted limited education (Class 3) and that he checked revenue records showing no lien. The Court found this assertion not credible in light of contemporaneous documentary record: specific provisional attachment order identifying properties, notice to evict under Section 8(4), and appeal listing the properties. The petitioner's conduct (selective sale of only part of properties despite knowledge) undermines reliance on ignorance or lack of mens rea. The Court reasoned that illiteracy cannot be invoked to frustrate statutory attachment or bail conditions, especially where procedural steps taken by the petitioner (appeal) demonstrate awareness. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - illiteracy or claimed lack of mens rea does not automatically absolve a person from compliance with statutory attachment orders and bail conditions; credible evidence of ignorance is required, absent which willfulness may be inferred. Obiter - remarks on the petitioner's imprudence as distinct from criminal intent. Conclusion: The plea of illiteracy and absence of criminal intention is not accepted and does not negate the finding of willful violation of bail/attachment conditions. Issue 3 - Impact of prior bail cancellation, proclaimed offender status, and related proceedings on subsequent bail applications Legal framework: Exercise of discretionary bail takes into account past conduct including breach of bail conditions, absconding or evasion (proclaimed offender), pendency of serious allegations, and any risk of hampering trial. Precedent Treatment: None cited; the Court applied established bail principles as to conduct and risk to trial process. Interpretation and reasoning: The sequence - cancellation of pre-arrest bail, issuance of non-bailable warrants, declaration as proclaimed offender, surrender, and dismissal of an earlier regular-bail application - demonstrates pattern of conduct adverse to the trust reposed by the Court. The Court observed a 'serious and justified apprehension' that bail would be again violated and trial hampered if concession were granted. The existence of an FIR against the petitioner and revenue officials for the sale, conviction of a family co-accused in related offenses, and other inculpatory facts strengthen apprehension of risk to trial and public justice. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - prior cancellation of bail and declared status as proclaimed offender are substantial grounds for refusal of subsequent bail where they evidence likelihood of future non-compliance and interference with trial. Obiter - none significant beyond application to the facts. Conclusion: The petitioner's earlier conduct and intervening adverse developments justify refusal of regular bail. Issue 4 - Maintainability of a second regular-bail petition in absence of new exculpatory facts Legal framework: Repetition of bail applications is permissible but courts will entertain further applications only if fresh facts or circumstances arise that materially alter the jurisdictional or discretionary balance in favour of bail. Precedent Treatment: No external authority cited; approach adopted is consistent with established practice requiring new facts for reconsideration. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court finds no new exculpatory material in support of the second regular-bail petition; rather, the record discloses additional inculpatory facts (sale of attached properties, FIR, proclaimed offender status). The absence of fresh grounds coupled with emergence of adverse facts renders the petition not maintainable in the sense of not meriting grant. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - subsequent bail petitions must be supported by new and material facts; mere re-argument without fresh exculpatory material is insufficient. Obiter - procedural observation that intervening inculpatory facts weigh against repetition of relief. Conclusion: The second regular-bail petition is not maintainable on present record and is dismissed on merits. Issue 5 - Applicability of PMLA twin conditions and statutory scheme to judicial discretion on bail Legal framework: PMLA contains a special regime for attachment and preservation of proceeds of crime; Section 45 (as referenced) and scheme-related provisions impose limitations and conditions relevant to exercise of bail jurisdiction in money-laundering matters. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied statutory provisions and internal bail order conditions rather than judicially overruling statutory limitations. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated the special PMLA scheme as a contextual constraint on discretionary bail - specifically, the bail previously granted was made subject to non-disposal/attachment conditions. Given confirmation of attachment and appellate process pending, coupled with active steps to record the attachment in revenue records, the statutory protective regime for attached properties militates against liberating the accused by grant of regular bail that could compromise the corpus of attached assets. The petitioner's sale of attached properties compounded this statutory concern. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where statutory attachment under PMLA is in place and confirmed, and bail is granted subject to non-disposal conditions, proven violation of those conditions and the statutory scheme justifies denial of regular bail. Obiter - commentary on the interplay between revenue-record endorsements and PMLA attachment enforcement. Conclusion: The PMLA statutory scheme and the conditions incident to earlier bail weigh decisively against exercising discretion to grant regular bail. OVERALL CONCLUSION The Court finds that the petitioner willfully violated bail and attachment conditions by selling two attached properties despite awareness (appeal and notices), that the claim of illiteracy does not absolve him, that prior cancellation of bail and proclaimed-offender status create justified apprehension of further breach and interference with trial, and that no new exculpatory facts have been produced. Accordingly, the petition for regular bail is dismissed as devoid of merit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
