2024 (7) TMI 1116 - HC - Money Laundering

Petitioner gets bail in money laundering case over Defence Ministry land fraud allegations

The Jharkhand HC granted bail to a petitioner in a money laundering case involving fraudulent acquisition of 8.86 acres of Defence Ministry land. The ... Seeking grant of bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - fraudulent acquisition of land which was in possession of Ministry of Defence, Government of India - reasons to believe - twin conditions laid down u/s 45 PMLA, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The documents seized according to the Enforcement Directorate manifested in a trail designating the role of the petitioner in the illegal acquisition and possession of 8.86 acres of land situated at Shanti Nagar, Baragain, Bariatu Road (near Lalu Khatal). It is, therefore, the case of the Enforcement Directorate that the provisions of PMLA, 2002 would apply since the petitioner had derived or obtained property as a result of a scheduled offence and had indulged himself in an activity connected with the said property. The factual aspects of the case would negate the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that there has been no schedule offence and, therefore, no case of money laundering is made out. The involvement of the petitioner as per the prosecuting agency is primarily through the angle of conspiracy though according to the Enforcement Directorate Section 120B was struck off in the formal FIR at the behest of the Police in spite of conspiracy playing a predominant role in the predicate offence which led to institution of Sadar P.S. Case No. 272 of 2023. The prelude to the entire episode culminating in submission of prosecution complaint and supplementary prosecution complaint by the Enforcement Directorate is the recovery of huge quantity of incriminating documents showing forgery, manipulation and tampering of government records and mutilation of government revenue records. Reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- The statement u/s 50 PMLA, 2002 is admissible in evidence as such statement is deemed to be recorded in a judicial proceeding as envisaged in sub-Section 4 of Section 50 PMLA, 2002. This Court is aware of the fact that meticulously delving into such evidence is the domain of the learned trial court and, therefore, only a fleeting reference has been made of the statements recorded u/s 50 PMLA, 2002 of the relevant persons. However, the same does not put an embargo upon the Court to disregard such statements in its totality particularly in a situation when the plea of bail of an accused is being considered. However, the contours of such statements can be taken into consideration in order to ascertain as to whether 'reason to believe' that the petitioner is not guilty is fulfilled as enshrined in Section 45 PMLA, 2002. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Others versus Union of India [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], the broad probabilities based on the materials collected during investigation is to be considered and while reiterating the observations made in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma [2005 (4) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT], it was concluded thus 'The court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the court based on available material on record is required. The court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of Trial Court. The court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the Trial court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial.' The overall conspectus of the case based on broad probabilities does not specifically or indirectly assign the petitioner to be involved in the acquisition and possession as well as concealment of 8.86 acres of land at Shanti Nagar, Bargain, Ranchi connected to the 'proceeds of crime'. None of the registers/revenue records bare imprint of the direct involvement of the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of the said land. As it has been noticed above, the statement of some of the persons u/s 50 PMLA, 2002 designated the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of the property in question in the year 2010 without any material worth consideration and for all this while none of the ousted persons had approached the competent authority by registering any complaint which has conveniently been discounted by the Enforcement Directorate that the approaches though made to the Police proved futile. The consequence of the findings recorded by this Court satisfies the condition as at Section 45 PMLA, 2002 to the effect that there is 'reason to believe' that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence as alleged - Though the conduct of the petitioner has been sought to be highlighted by the Enforcement Directorate on account of the First Information Report instituted by the petitioner against the officials of the Enforcement Directorate but on an overall conspectus of the case there is no likelihood of the petitioner committing a similar nature of offence. The twin conditions as prescribed u/s 45 PMLA, 2002 having been fulfilled, this application is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi in connection with ECIR Case No. 06/2023, arising out of ECIR/RNZO/25/2023 dated 26.06.2023. Bail application allowed. Issues Involved:1. Bail application under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).2. Allegations of fraudulent acquisition and possession of land.3. Involvement in criminal conspiracy and tampering with government records.4. Applicability of PMLA provisions and existence of predicate offences.5. Admissibility and probative value of statements under Section 50 PMLA.6. Conditions for bail under Section 45 PMLA.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Bail Application under PMLA:The petitioner sought bail in connection with ECIR Case No. 06/2023 under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, punishable under Section 4 of the same Act. The petitioner was in custody, and the case was pending before the Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.2. Allegations of Fraudulent Acquisition and Possession of Land:The prosecution complaint under PMLA alleged that the petitioner was involved in a land-grabbing syndicate, acquiring properties through falsified deeds and tampered government records. The investigation revealed that the petitioner had illegally acquired and possessed 8.86 acres of land at Shanti Nagar, Baragain, Ranchi. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) conducted searches and seized documents indicating tampering and falsification of records, implicating the petitioner and his accomplices.3. Involvement in Criminal Conspiracy and Tampering with Government Records:The ED's investigation pointed to a conspiracy involving the petitioner and government officials, including Bhanu Pratap Prasad. The seized documents and statements under Section 50 PMLA indicated the petitioner's involvement in manipulating government records to acquire land fraudulently. The petitioner allegedly used his position to influence state machinery and create false evidence to cover up his illegal activities.4. Applicability of PMLA Provisions and Existence of Predicate Offences:The petitioner argued that no predicate offence was established, thus negating the applicability of PMLA. However, the court referred to previous judgments, including 'Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Others vs. Union of India,' which clarified that PMLA can be invoked if the property is derived from a scheduled offence. The court found sufficient evidence of a scheduled offence, validating the application of PMLA in this case.5. Admissibility and Probative Value of Statements under Section 50 PMLA:Statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA are deemed judicial proceedings and are admissible in evidence. The court referred to judgments like 'Satyendra Kumar Jain vs. Directorate of Enforcement,' which upheld the admissibility of such statements. The statements indicated the petitioner's involvement in the fraudulent acquisition and possession of the land, though their probative value would be assessed during the trial.6. Conditions for Bail under Section 45 PMLA:Section 45 PMLA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The court referred to 'Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra,' emphasizing the need for a prima facie assessment based on broad probabilities. The court found that the evidence did not conclusively establish the petitioner's guilt and that he was unlikely to commit a similar offence while on bail.Conclusion:The court concluded that the petitioner met the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA, 2002, for bail. The evidence did not conclusively prove the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence, and there was no likelihood of him committing a similar offence while on bail. Consequently, the petitioner was granted bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.