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=461552 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461552 Seeking grant of Regular bail - Money Laundering - scheduled/predicate offence - proceeds of crime - illegally collecting commissions and supplying unaccounted liquor to the government liquor shops - satisfaction of twin test under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 or not - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the applicant was involved in the criminal acts of the syndicate and that he received commission from the liquor suppliers. However, no recovery of unaccounted money has been made in this regard and as per the investigating agency, the investigation is pending, hence, a conclusive determination of their role is yet to be made. On perusal of the records, it appears that the co-accused Trilok Singh Dhillon was a liquor. In the case in hand, considering the fact that the charges levelled against the applicant are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law and judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India and Others [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], it is clear that the offence under PMLA, 2002 is a separate and distinct offence. PMLA 2002 deals with the proceeds of crime which has been obtained by the accused by committing schedule offences. Accused possess, conceals and acquire tainted property or money claiming it to be untainted and use the proceeds of crime. Said act of accused in dealing with ill gotten money or property constitutes separate and distinct offence from earlier offence committed to acquire money. It is important to note that the twin conditions provided under Section 45 of the 2002 Act, though restrict the right of the accused to grant of bail, but it cannot be said that the conditions provided under Section 45 impose absolute restraint on the grant of bail. The discretion vests in the Court which is not arbitrary or irrational but judicial, guided by the principles of law as provided under Section 45 of the Act, 2002. What is required is to prima facie, consider the material available on record to satisfy itself and to enable it to reasonably form an opinion, to believe, that the applicant is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence on bail as enshrined in Section 45 of the PMLA. It is also required to consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, character, behaviour means, position and standing of the accused, the likelihood and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced and danger, of course, of justice being defeated by grant of bail. Conclusion - The applicant is in possession of the Proceeds of Crime of about 27.2 crores which was used in creation of various Fixed Deposits of principal amount totalling to Rs. 27.2 crores in the name of his companies ie. M/s. Petrosun Bio Refineries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Dhillon City Mall Pvt. Ltd. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, considering the material available on record including the money transactions in the FDR accounts of the applicant and its use by the applicant through his firms/companies, for all the reasons aforesaid, this Court is unable to persuade itself to form a prima facie, satisfaction in terms of Section 45 of the PMLA, at this stage, and further that the prosecution complaint has been filed against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. The prayer for bail made by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 for the offences under Section 3 & 4 of the PMLA, 2002, is hereby rejected - bail application dismissed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 06 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530