https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430331 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430331 Seeking grant of Regular Bail - scheduled offences - proceeds of crime - illegal mining - using proceeds of the crime for procuring property/money - allegations against the accused named in the FIR are/were that they were found stealing sand from the river Swan Khad Una, which areas was otherwise not leased out to present bail petitioner - HELD THAT:- In the case at hand, on the one hand Enforcement Directorate shared information with the police Under Section 66(2) of the prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, with the State Police but at the same time arrested bail petitioner on the basis of ECIR as detailed hereinafter. Now question which needs determination is, whether without there being any evidence of en-massing/procurement of proceeds of crime if any by bail petitioner, Enforcement Agency could proceed to register the case under Section 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 or not? No doubt, had some material emerged in the earlier FIR 252 of 2021 against the petitioner suggestive the fact that he after having indulged in criminal activity possessed/ acquired or procured wealth/property with the help and aid of the proceeds of crime, Enforcement Department would have been justified to proceed against bail petitioner under Section 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. No doubt, the petitioner is accused of having committed serious offence under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, but guilt if any of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and the convincing evidence and as such there appears to be no reason to curtail his freedom for an indefinite period during trial, especially when investigating agency has already taken into custody entire record from the accused and he is in judicial custody for over a month - apprehension expressed by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that in the event of petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and tamper with the prosecution evidence can be best met by putting him to stringent conditions. By now, it is well settled that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself. Consequently, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25 lac/- with two local sureties in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, besides the other conditions imposed - application allowed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 10 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530