AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ney Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2002) on 24th June, 2022. Prosecution complaint under section 44 read with section 45 of the Act of 2002 was filed on 19th September, 2022 against eight accused persons. The first supplementary prosecution complaint was filed on 7th December, 2022 adding six new accused besides the earlier eight persons. Search was conducted at the petitioner's residential premises on 20th January, 2023, 25th January, 2023, 26th January, 2023 and 27th January, 2023 and the petitioner was called for interrogation by the Enforcement Directorate (in short the E.D.) on 10th March, 2023 and was arrested on the same date. The second supplementary complaint was filed on 21st March, 2023. The petitioner was named in the third supplementary complaint filed on 8th May, 2023. Charge sheet was submitted in connection with the predicate offence on 18th May, 2023 and provisional attachment order issued on 13th July, 2023. The fourth supplementary complaint was filed on 28th July, 2023. 2) Seeking bail of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed his argument as hereunder:- The petitioner is in custody since 10th March....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst the petitioner by Tapas Kumar Mondal or Kuntal Ghosh in the CBI case though both the cases arose out of the same alleged offences/incidents. There is no proof of any money trail to substantiate that the petitioner is the recipient of any amount as alleged. 6) The petitioner was appointed to the post of Vice-President of West Bengal Pradesh Trinamool Youth Congress in August 2020 and as Karmadakshya of Hooghly Zilla Parishad in 2018, i.e., much after the period when the scheduled offence pertaining to TET-2014 could have been committed. TET-2014 examination was held on 11th October, 2015 and results were declared on 14th September, 2016. Therefore the petitioner was not an influential person at the relevant time. 7) Though in his statement before the E.D. the petitioner has accepted that he gave details of the admit card of one Rahul Dev Ghosh to Kuntal Ghosh and the said candidate was selected for the post of primary teacher, the petitioner also gave the details of his wife and sister-in-law who were not selected. Much emphasis has been laid by the E.D. on the statement of one Gunadhar Khanra who has not been named as an accused or cited as a witness in the complaint. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P. Chidambaram v/s. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 791 13. Vijay Agrawal v/s. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2023) 2 High Court Cases (Del) 651 14. Manish Sisodia v/s. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 15. Manik Bhattacharya v/s. Enforcement Directorate reported in C.R.M (SB) 72 of 2024 16. Prem Prakash v/s. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2270 17. Ramkripal Meena v/s. Director of Enforcement reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No (s). 3205/2024 18. Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755 19. Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v/s. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 20. Vijay Nair v/s. Directorate of Enforcement reported in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No (s.) 22137/2024 21. Kalvakuntla Kavitha v/s. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269. 9) Speaking for the E.D. and vehemently opposing the prayer, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner being the former Vice-President o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering. In view of the restrictions laid down under section 45 of the Act, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 11) Learned counsel has referred to the following authorities in support of his contention. 1. Maru Ram Etc. vs. Union of India & Anr reported in 1981 SCR (1)1196. 2. Karan Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr reported in 2013 (12) SCC 529. 3. Satyendar Kumar Jain vs. Enforcement Directorate reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 317. 4. Partha Chatterjee vs. Enforcement Directorate [CRM (SB) 180 of 2023]. 5. Kuntal Ghosh vs. C.B.I. [C.R.M (DB) 681 of 2024]. 6. Manish Sisodia vs. C.B.I reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393. 7. Tarun Kumar vs. Enforcement Directorate reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486. 8. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929. 9. State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364. 10. Y.S Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. C.B.I reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439. 11. Nimmagadda Prasad vs. C.B.I reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466. 12. Gautam Kundu v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning the process or activity connected with such property, which constitutes the offence of money laundering. The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum." Since the petitioner is admittedly not an accused in the predicate offence, his further detention in the present case is not warranted. 16) The factors which are to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the authority in Prosanta Kumar Sarkar v/s. Ashis Chatterjee and Another reported in (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 496 are as hereunder:- i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; v) character, behaviour, means, position and stan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner to rebut the presumption under section 24. 20) The allegations primarily rest on the statement of the co-accused recorded under section 50 of the Act, the truth and veracity of which need to be weighed during trial. The material collected by the E.D. prima facie suggests that the petitioner was allegedly in liason with Manik Bhattacharyya and Kuntal Ghosh who were actively involved in the offence. Both of them have been granted bail by this Court. The petitioner is similarly circumstanced. 21) With regard to prolonged incarceration of the petitioner and delay in trial, the petitioner has submitted that he is in custody since 10th March, 2023, i.e., for about twenty months. 22) Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as it stands after amendment of section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure spells out that the first time offender (who has never been convicted for any offence in the past) shall be released on bond by the Court if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to onethird of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence under that law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the order passed on 23rd August, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titution is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional Court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-under trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional Court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. 25) With regard to the apprehension that the petitioner shall influence witnesses or may abscond if released on bail, stringent conditions may be imposed upon him to address the concern. 26) Section 4 of the Act of the 2002 provides for rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and also fine. According to the E.D., investigation qua the petitioner is complete but charge is yet to be framed. 27) The petitioner cannot be held entirely responsible for the delay in trial. The case involves 182 statements, 210 documents and 167 witnesses to be examined in order to substantiate the charges levelled against twentyfive....