TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rant of regular bail to the petitioner in case/FIR ECIR No. ECIR/JLZO/21/2021 dated 30.11.2021 for the offence under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PMLA'), District Jalandhar. Learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case; he is in custody for the last about 05 months, that is w.e.f. 03.02.2022, and the investigation in all respect is complete; a formal complaint is already filed before the competent Court of law, therefore, the petitioner is no more required for any further custodial investigation. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.05.2017, in an E-Auction conducted by the Mining Department, one Kudratdeep Singh was the successful bidder for Rs. 4.04 crores and was allotted a sand mine measuring 4.41 hectares in village Malikpur, District S. B. S. Nagar. Later on, finding that the location of the land is not clear, he got the same demarcated through Halqa Patwari on 16.08.2017 and found that the location of the land is on southern side of Satluj river and there is no proper passage from village Malikpur, where he was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,99,17,200/- was recovered in cash. With regard to this money also, it is the case of the ED that this amount was given by the petitioner to Sandeep Kumar. It is further submitted that this recovery is effected on 18.01.2022, therefore, the same does not relate to the offence under FIR No. 26, which was registered on 07.03.2018. Learned senior counsel has next argued that during investigation, even Sandeep Kumar has been let off by the ED and the disclosure statement of the petitioner was recorded in custody that the money recovered from Sandeep Kumar in fact belongs to the petitioner and a total of Rs. 9,97,52,700/- is shown to have been recovered from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the investigation of the ED further suggests that there were total 09 partners, who had obtained Malikpur sand mine contract along with Kudratdeep Singh, however, petitioner Bhupinder Singh @ Honey was not one of the partners in the said firm. Learned senior counsel further argued that in order to connect the petitioner with the said offence, ED recorded the statement of Kudratdeep Singh that the petitioner used to help him whenever there was a dispute between the part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner by recording his statement that Rs. 6/7 crores were recovered by him during the past six months from Rakesh Chaudhary and Mohan Pal Singh for facilitating them in their mining related works and remaining Rs.3/4 crores were received by him for arranging transfer of the employees of the Punjab Govt. through his political connections. Learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the adjudicating authority under the Act and the matter is subjudice and, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be held that the amount recovered was proceeds of crime. Learned senior counsel has next argued that if the statement of the petitioner, which was recorded while in custody and is yet to be proved during trial, is taken to be correct on the face of it, the same contradicts the version of ED that it relates to FIR No. 26, registered on 07.03.2018, whereas the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 18.01.2022 and there was no FIR of illegal mining against the petitioner or against aforesaid two persons from the year 2019 to 2022, therefore, ED could not investigate the crime, for which no FIR regarding predicate offence has been registered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n addition, I state that during search conducted on 18.01.2022, In the statement, in question number 6, the annual income was mistakenly stated as Rs 6 lakh." Learned senior counsel further argued that the petitioner has properly explained that the money recovered from him was in fact earned by providing different type of machineries to mining sites and he never obtained any money for the transfer of any employee of the Govt. of Punjab. Further submitted that in fact in a statement dated 06.02.2022, the petitioner has also explained that Rakesh Chaudhary and his friend Mohan Pal Singh wanted some favour from Chief Minister but the Chief Minister, instead of giving favour, reduced the price of sand and due to this, both of them got annoyed. Learned senior counsel further argued that ED could not found any evidence to connect the then Chief Minister of Punjab, therefore, on 31.03.2022, ED filed a formal complaint before the competent Court of law only against the petitioner and Kudratdeep Singh only. It is further submitted that in para 3.1 of this complaint, again there is a reference of FIR No. 26 dated 07.03.2018 as well as three weighment slips dated 16.03.2018,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lished that applicant used to assist Sh. Kudratdeep Singh @ Lovie in mining activities at Malikpur mine, used to handle works of Malikpur mining site on behalf of Kudratdeep Singh @ Lovie, used to coordinate/liaison with various government departments, used to assist in illegal sand mining activities by obtaining early raid alerts. Aplicant was found to be in possession of fake weighment slips pertaining to Malikpur mining site and was in possession of illegitimate cash suspected to be proceeds of crime which is relatable to illegal mining activities in relation to scheduled offence. 6.15 Thus, Applicant was found actually involved in the offence of money laundering and has committed offence of money laundering defined under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which is punishable under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002." Learned senior counsel has referred to (2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 791, P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement to submit that Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail in a complaint filed by ED by observing as under: "23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he alleged offence. The learned senior counsel for the appellant with specific reference to certain observations contained in the above noted paragraphs has pointed out that the very contentions to that effect as contained in paragraphs 17, 20 and 24 of the counter affidavit has been incorporated as if, it is the findings of the Court. The learned Solicitor General while seeking to controvert such contention would however contend that in addition to the counter affidavit the respondent had also furnished the documents in a sealed cover which was taken note by the learned Judge and conclusion has been reached." Learned senior counsel has lastly argued that the petitioner is not maintaining good health as he is suffering from heart problems and even in custody, he was examined by the jail doctor and he needs urgent medical treatment and has relied upon the medical prescription issued by the Medical Officer, Central Jail, Kapurthala. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-ED, has filed the custody certificate, according to which, the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last 04 months and 18 days. Learned counsel for the respondent-ED has referred to Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence and not likely to commit offence while on bail and thirdly that in addition to provisions of PMLA, the provisions of Cr.P.C., regarding grant of bail, shall apply. Section 45 (1) (ii) is akin to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, wherein the Court, while granting bail, has to form an opinion. In a case under the NDPS Act, it is easy for an accused, who has been released on bail to repeat such offence, however, in a case under the PMLA like the present case, it is not easy for an accused to commit the offence again as he will always be in radar of E.D. (b) It is the admitted case of ED that after registration of the aforesaid FIR in 2018, a complaint has been filed by ED in 2022 i.e. after a period of about 04 years and in the intervening period, there was no further complaint or FIR regarding illegal mining to suggest that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in any other case even prior to registration of the aforesaid FIR, especially when he is not named either in FIR No. 26 or report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (c) As per own investigation of ED, the petitioner was helping Kudratdeep Singh @ Lovie, who was allotted the lease license, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral Jail, Kapurthala, the petitioner is under treatment for his heart ailments and he needs further treatment from specialized doctors, which itself is a ground for releasing the petitioner on bail. (i) Even otherwise, the petitioner is in custody since03.02.2022 and in judicial custody w.e.f. 11.02.2022, as per custody certificate filed in Court, and a period of about 05 months has lapsed, therefore, the petitioner cannot be kept in judicial custody for unlimited period in the light of judgment in P. Chidambaram's case (supra). Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner qualifies the triple test under Section 45 of the Act and, therefore, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will furnish bail and two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, out of which, one surety will be a local surety. (ii) The passport of the petitioner will remain in the custody of the prosecuting agency or the trial Court and the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of this Court. (iii) The petitioner will furnis....