TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1741
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4, 506, 341, 323 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, since offences under Section 420 and 467 of IPC are Scheduled Offences under Part A of the Schedule of PMLA, 2002. 3. It has been stated that the FIR being Sadar P.S. Case No. 399 of 2022 was registered on the directions of the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 3111 of 2021 passed vide order dated 28.06.2022. 4. A complaint case was filed by Umesh Kumar Gope against Rajesh Rai, Imtiaz Ahmad, Bharat Prasad, Lakhan Singh, Punit Bhargav and Bishnu Kumar Agarwal for fraudulently acquiring one acre of land situated at Cheshire Home Road, Plot No 28, Khata No. 37, Mouza Gari, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The allegations in the first information report being Sadar PS Case no. 399 of 2022 are that one Rajesh Rai illegally and fraudulently made a Power of Attorney in the name of Imtiaz Ahmad and Bharat Prasad on the strength of the said Power of Attorney they prepared a forged sale deed and sold the above-mentioned parcel of land admeasuring 1 acre to Punit Bhargav for an amount of Rs.1,78,55,800/- and Puneet Bhargav further sold the said land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal through two Sale Deeds for a total a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PML Act Ranchi. 12. The present petitioner has been remanded in this case on 27.09.2023, accordingly, he, preferred Miscellaneous Criminal Application (MCA No. 98 of 2024) but the same was rejected on 30.01.2024, hence, the instant bail application. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner: 13. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following grounds that:- (i) Even if the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration, no offence will be said to be committed so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002. (ii) Sadar P.S. Case No.399/2022, has been instituted against six named accused persons, namely, Rajesh Rai, Imtiyaz Amad, Bharat Prasad, Lakhan Singh, Punit Bhargava and Bishnu Kumar Agrawal but this petitioner has not been named in the schedule offence. No allegation has been alleged against the present petitioner even in the entire complaint case no suspicion has been raised against the petitioner with respect to his involvement. This, petitioner is having no concern at all with the entire transaction. (iii) The complainant after thorough inspection of the rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the account of co-accused, Rajesh Rai transferred to one Green Traders. This petitioner is having no concern with Green Traders. Neither he is the partner nor he is the proprietor nor even Director of the aforesaid firm/company and only on vague allegation this petitioner has been implicated in the present case and remanded to the custody in the month of September, 2023. (xiii) No proof or material has been collected by the Enforcement Directorate to show the specific role of this petitioner either in manufacture of the documents or in laundering of the amount in question. (xiv) The statement of the co-accused persons, namely, Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed have also been referred, wherefrom, it is evident in order to make out a case that the transaction in lieu of the illegal transfer of land is nowhere related with the petitioner, rather, the land has been transferred by another person in favour of the person, namely, Puneet Bhargav who had paid the consideration amount and said Puneet Bhargav subsequently transferred it to Bishnu Kumar Agarwala but without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the petitioner has been implicated in the instant case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the privilege of bail. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent/Directorate of Enforcement 14. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by taking the following grounds: - (i) It has been submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner that he is innocent and having no connection with the commission of crime. (ii) Further, it has come in the ECIR that the Petitioner is a part of the syndicate involved in acquiring and disposing landed properties by way of preparing fake deeds. Further, the frequent transactions with other accused persons corroborate the fact that the accused person is a beneficiary of the proceeds of crime generated out of the illegal activities of fraudulently acquiring land parcels. (iii) The documents used in the commission of crime are mostly fake property documents which have been used to create fictitious ownership in relation to several targeted properties. The searches were conducted at the premises of the petitioner and his close accomplices namely Md. Saddam Hussain and others has led to the recovery of 36 fake....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the behest of this petitioner, therefore, on fact the petitioner is not entitled to get the advantage of parity on the basis of the order granting bail in favour of the other coaccused namely Chavi Ranjan, and Prem Prakash, since this court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court while allowing the prayer of aforesaid co-accused for bail has taken into consideration the particular role of the said co-accused in the alleged commission of crime. (x)So far parity of the present applicant with the coaccused namely Rajesh Rai is concerned the Hon'ble Apex Court while taking in to consideration the probable delay in conclusion of the trial has allowed the prayer for bail of the said co-accused. In the aforesaid context the learned counsel for respondent has submitted at bar that all possible step has been taken by the prosecution to earlier conclusion of the trial, since the present petitioner was very much instrumental in preparation of the several fake deed, therefore, the benefit of parity should not have been granted to the present applicant. (xi) In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments :- (a) Manharib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to the financial systems of the country but also to its integrity and sovereignty. The offence of money laundering is a very serious offence which is committed by an individual with a deliberate desire and the motive to enhance his gains, disregarding the interest of the nation and the society as a whole, and such offence by no stretch of imagination can be regarded as an offence of trivial nature. The stringent provisions have been made in the Act to combat the menace of money laundering. 20. It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of crime" as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:- "2(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property 3[or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] 4[or abroad]; [Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces specified under Part C of the Schedule." 26. It is evident that the "scheduled offence" means the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule. 27. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:- "3. Offence of money-laundering.-Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the [proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. [Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,- (i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Constitution. For, it allows the authorised officer under the 2002 Act to summon any person and record his statement during the course of investigation. Further, the provision mandates that the person should disclose true and correct facts known to his personal knowledge in connection with the subject matter of investigation. The person is also obliged to sign the statement so given with the threat of being punished for the falsity or incorrectness thereof in terms of Section 63 of the 2002 Act. Before we proceed to analyse the matter further, it is apposite to reproduce Section 50 of the 2002 Act, as amended. -----:- 424. By this provision, the Director has been empowered to exercise the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the 1908 Code while trying a suit in respect of matters specified in sub-section (1). This is in reference to Section 13 of the 2002 Act dealing with powers of Director to impose fine in respect of acts of commission and omission by the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries. From the setting in which Section 50 has been placed and the expanse of empowering the Director with same powers as are vested in a civil Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....more than to furnish evidence and such evidence can be furnished by different modes. The Court went on to observe as follows: "Broadly stated the guarantee in article 20(3) is against "testimonial compulsion". It is suggested that this is confined to the oral evidence of a person standing his trial for an offence when called to the witness-stand. We can see no reason to confine the content of the constitutional guarantee to this barely literal import. So to limit it would be to rob the guarantee of its substantial purpose and to miss the substance for the sound as stated in certain American decisions. The phrase used in Article 20(3) is "to be a witness". A person can "be a witness" not merely by giving oral evidence but also by producing documents or making intelligible gestures as in the case of a dumb witness (See section 119 of the Evidence Act) or the like. "To be a witness" is nothing more than "to furnish evidence", and such evidence can be furnished through the lips or by production of a thing or of a document or in other modes. So far as production of documents is concerned, no doubt Section 139 of the Evidence Act says that a person producing a document on summon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een summoned for making disclosures pursuant to the summons issued by the Authority. At this stage, there would be no formal document indicative of likelihood of involvement of such person as an accused of offence of money-laundering. If the statement made by him reveals the offence of money-laundering or the existence of proceeds of crime, that becomes actionable under the Act itself. To put it differently, at the stage of recording of statement for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property being proceeds of crime is, in that sense, not an investigation for prosecution as such; and in any case, there would be no formal accusation against the noticee. Such summons can be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by the authorised officials. However, after further inquiry on the basis of other material and evidence, the involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed, the authorised officials can certainly proceed against him for his acts of commission or omission. In such a situation, at the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, if his/her statement is record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the scheduled offence" will come under the fold of the proceeds of crime. 36. So far as the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii) is concerned, the aforesaid provision starts from the non-obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting bail specific in sub-section (1) in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. The explanation is also there as under sub-section (2) thereof which is for the purpose of removal of doubts, a clarification has been inserted that the expression "Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and stringent measures to combat the menace of money laundering. 412. As a result, we have no hesitation in observing that in whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the constitutional court, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of the 2002 Act must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money laundering." 38. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been laid down that since the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory, they need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia and Ors. (supra) as under paragraph-284, it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process. 42. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at paragraph -30 that the conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA. 43. Section 65 requires that the provisions of Cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the oft-quoted phrase - 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as under: "28. The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence visà-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase - 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act. The 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. The form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D (5)- 'shall not be released' in contrast with the form of the words as found in Section 437(1) CrPC - 'may be released' - suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule." 46. The reason for making reference of this judgment is that in the Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr., the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, PS Sadar, Ranchi. 3.2 The FIR alleged that Rajesh Rai, S/o Jagdish Rai, illegally and fraudulently made a power of attorney in the name of Imtiyaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad. On the strength of the said power of attorney, they prepared a forged sale deed and sold the abovementioned parcel of land admeasuring 1 acres to Punit Bhargav for an amount of Rs. 1,78,55,800/-. Punit Bhargava further sold the said land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, vide two sale deeds for the total amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- (Vide two sale deeds, both dated 01.04.2021, for an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/- and Rs. 77,40,000/-). 3.5 Investigation reveals that Rajesh Rai in connivance with Bharat Prasad, Md. Saddam Hussain, Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed and others prepared one forged deed of 1948 was prepared by the accused persons and on the basis of that a power of attorney was given in favour of Imtiaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad. The other accomplice namely Lakhan Singh became the confirming party in the deed and they executed sale deed dated 06.02.2021 {RUD No. 3 (i)} in favour of Punit Bhargava for an amount of Rs. 1,78,55,800/- which was registered as document no. 2021/RAN/1016/BK1/906 in book no. BK1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rajesh Rai, Lakhan Singh and Bharat Prasad are habitual offenders and they are involved in mass forgery.--- Brief detail of person examined under section 50(2) & 3 of PMLA 8.12 Afshar Ali - The accused Afshar Ali is a habitual offender who has manufactured several fake deeds and is one of the masterminds behind the activities of falsification of government records and planting fake deeds in the records of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. He was arrested on 14.04.2023 after searches were conducted at his residential premises on 13.04.2023. At present, he is in Judicial custody. In his statement dated 17.04.2023, (RUD No 33) he stated that he was aware of the fact that the one acre of land situated at Plot no. 28, Khata no. 37, Village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi was part of ten acres of land which was acquired by Birlas and later sold to Kanodias. Out of these ten acres, the above said one acre of land was unsold. Further, out of the ten acres of land, a plot of 3.51 acres was initially sold to one Gangadhar Rai, and as such, he made a fake deed wherein the said one acre of land was sold by Gangadhar Rai to Jagdish Rai, father of Rajesh Rai. He also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heshire Home Road in the name of his associate Punit Bhargava. Further he has stated that owing to the ill-health of Rajesh Rai, the power of attorney was given to Bharat Prasad and Imtiaz Ahmed and subsequently as asked by Prem Prakash, the land was registered in the name of Punit Bhargava and Lakhan Singh was shown as the confirming party over the said piece of land. Moreover, he has stated that they were paid Rs.25 lacs directly into the bank accounts and they were assured to be paid the remaining amount of Rs. 25 lacs in cash. Rest of the amount of Rs. 1 crore was adjusted for unblocking the aforementioned blocked piece of plot in land measuring 3.81 acres. Further in his statement, he has stated that while the transactions were being finalized with Prem Prakash, he had further fixed the deal of this land with Bishnu Kumar Agarwal. Bishnu Kumar Agarwal had knowledge about the disputes involved in this land for which he first asked Prem Prakash to fence the abovesaid one acres of land with boundary walls. For this, first the land was fenced with aluminum sheets and later, wick walls were constructed inside. Brief summary of result of investigation under PMLA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e confirming party in the deed and they executed sale deed dated 06.02.2021 in favour of Punit Bhargava for an amount of Rs. 1,78,55,800/- which was registered as document no. 2021/RAN/1016/BK1/906 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 112 from page no. 369 to 506 at the office of SRO, Ranchi. 9.7 Punit Bhargava further sold the said land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal vide two sale deeds, both dated 01.04.2021, registered as document no. 2021/RAN/2784/BK1/2483 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 316 from page no. 405 to 532 at the office of SRO, Ranchi (for an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/-) and document no. 2021/RAN/2783/BK1/2482 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 316 from page no. 261 to 404 at the office of SRO, Ranchi (for an amount of Rs. 77,40,000). 9.8 Investigation further reveals that though the consideration amount in the deed between Imtiaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad and Punit Bhargava is shown as Rs. 1,78,55,800/-, but only an amount of Rs. 25 lacs have been paid from the Bank of Baroda account of Shiva Fabcons, (account no.52580200000085) one of the proprietorship firms of Punit Bhargava into the SBI Account no. 31180122501 of Rajesh Rai on 12.02.2021. Further Investigation reveals that out of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar 1985 and expired in the year 2014 after which, the lease of the above-stated was not renewed in name of any person. However, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal by concealing and suppressing the facts and by assistance of the accused Chhavi Ranjan and others purchased this Khasmahal land in illegal manner. Brief facts of the FIR and the reasons of the ECIR 10.1.1 An FIR bearing no. 399 of 2022 dated 08.09.2022 (RUD No.03) was registered by Sadar Police Station, Ranchi, Jharkhand under section sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 447, 504, 506, 341, 323 & 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860. The FIR was registered on the directions of the Ld. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in complaint case no. 3111 of 2021 passed by order dated 28.06.2022 for fraudulently grabbing one land measuring 1 acre at Plot no. 28, Khata No. 37, situated at village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, PS Sadar, Ranchi. 10.1.2 Investigation reveals that Rajesh Rai, S/o Jagdish Rai, illegally and fraudulently gave a power of attorney in respect of the above-stated property to Imtiyaz Ahmed (one of the accused arrested on 14.04.2023 in case No ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 in matter of forgery in making fake deeds of prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assurances, Kolkata. 14 Specific Roles of the Accused persons in commission of offence of Money laundering 14.5 Afshar Ali Afsu Khan, s/o Late Abid Ali (Accused no. 5) -The accused person was one of the main conspirators behind manufacturing fake deeds. He was a one of the parties with other accused persons namely Md. Saddam Hussain, Rajesh Rai and Imtiaz Ahmed, in manufacturing fake deeds for acquisition of proceeds of crime in form of landed property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Pict no. 28, Khata no. 37, Village Gan, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi. The accused person knowingly indulged in the process and activity of manufacturing fake deed in name of father of Rajesh Rai namely Jagdish Rai to acquire the above property. The accused person was also involved in making fake deed of sale dated 04.01.1952 being number 31 for the year 1952 of the office of the Registrar of Calcutta, entered in book 1, volume no. 20 at pages 243-248 shown to be executed by one Tulsi Das Kanoreya in favour of Kaliram Singh, father of the accused Lakhan Singh. The accused directly indulged with the above accused persons namely Imtiaz Ahmed, Bharat Prasad, Lakhan Singh and with other accu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....registration offices situated at Kolkata as well as Ranchi and same has not been found as genuine. 51. It is evident from the aforesaid paragraph that during the course of investigation, the statement of the Petitioner, Afshar Ali was recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, in the custody of the Directorate of Enforcement in ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 as well as in the judicial custody after taking permission from the Ld. Special Court, PMLA, Ranchi. Further, the statements of his accomplices were also recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 as well as; in the custody of the Directorate of Enforcement post arrest. From the statements of the aforesaid co-accused the case of the prosecution has fully been substantiated. 52. In his statement the present applicant has admitted that out of the ten acres of land, a plot of 3.51 acres was initially sold to one Gangadhar Rai, and as such, he made a fake deed wherein the said one acre of land was sold by Gangadhar Rai to Jagdish Rai, father of Rajesh Rai. 53. Record transpires that the accused petitioner namely Afsar Ali @ Afsu Khan was a party with the other co-accused persons in acquisition of proceeds of crime in form of landed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g, and claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property. 59. It is, thus, evident on the basis of the aforesaid material collected that prima-facie the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence said to be committed under the provisions of the Act, 2002, cannot be denied. 60. It appears from record that the petitioner is a habitual offender, who is involved in a number of illegal land acquisitions based on fake deeds, thereby causing tremendous loss to the government exchequer. Further, his active role also surfaced during investigation in other land scam cases being investigated by this office, bearing ECIR RNZO/18/2022 and the petitioner was arrested in ECIR/RNZO/18/2022, a case pertaining to illegal acquisition of a defence property on having reasons to believe that he is guilty of the offence of money laundering, after following the compliances under section 19 of PMLA, 2002. 61. It needs to refer herein that the petitioner was arrested under section 19 of PMLA, 2002 in ECIR:RNZO/18/2022 (case pertaining to fraudulent acquisition of a defence land) on having reasons to believe that he is guilty of the offence of money laundering as defined under sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made under Section 439 CrPC. That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the accused/petitioner. 66. As discussed above, the "offence of money-laundering" means whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering and the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever. 67. Further, it is evident from the judicial pronouncement as discussed above that in order to constitute any property as proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230, wherein, it has been held as under:- "25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508:], this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed: (SCC p. 515, para 17) "17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....73. This Court in order to come to the conclusion as to whether the case of the petitioner is at par with Bishnu Kumar Agarwala and Chhavi Ranjan who has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, needs to consider the allegation as has been surfaced in course of interrogation of the witness as accused persons as available in the ECIR for the purpose of clarification regarding the commission of the Act by Bishnu Kumar Agarwala, Chavi Ranjan and the petitioner. 74. This Court deems it fit and proper to go through the paragraphs of the said orders by which Bishnu Kumar Agarwala and Chavi Ranjan has been granted bail, so as to come to the conclusion that whether the accountability of Bishnu Kumar Agarwala and Chavi Ranjan in commission of predicate offence attracting the ingredient of Section 3 of the Act, 2002 is at par with the case of present petitioner/applicant herein. The aforesaid orders granting bail are available on record. 75. On comparative assessment of the allegation as per the material available on record it is evident that against the said Bishnu Kumar Agarwala, the allegation of purchase of the land in question has been alleged and further allegati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly an amount of Ra. 25 lacs was paid into the SBI Account no. 31100122501 of the dummy owner/accused Rajesh Rai on 12.02.2021. 81. Further, in the counter affidavit it has been submitted that the accused/petitioner is a habitual offender who is also involved in making fake deeds of properties admeasuring 3.81 acres situated at Plot no. 891, 892 and 903, Khata no. 256, Bargai, Ranchi in name of several other properties. This fact indicates the present petitioner Afshar Ali an accomplice of syndicate who is involved in manufacturing fake deeds for acquiring properties in fraudulent manner. 82. Hence, the petitioner Afshar Ali is involved in the activities connected with the acquisition, possession, concealment, of the proceeds of crime and claiming and projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property. Thus, the petitioner Afshar Ali has committed the offence of money laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002. 83. Further, the learned counsel for respondent has submitted at bar that all possible step would be taken by the prosecution to earlier conclusion of the trial. 84. Therefore, it is evident from the discussion as made above as per the allegation the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar as it is related to the phrase "to be a witness" is in respect of testimonial compulsion in the court room, and it may also extend to compelled testimony previously obtained from him. It is available therefore to a person against whom a formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been levelled, which in the normal course may result in a prosecution. 19. We also do not find any substance in the submission made by learned Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar for the respondent that the respondent has not been shown as an accused in the predicate offence. It is no more res integra that the offence of money laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a schedule offence. Hence, involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the Proceeds of Crime would constitute offence of money laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a schedule offence, except the Proceeds of Crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime. The precise observatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. The fact that the proceeds of crime have been generated as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, which incidentally happens to be a non-cognizable offence, would make no difference. The person is not prosecuted for the scheduled offence by invoking provisions of the 2002 Act, but only when he has derived or obtained property as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence and then indulges in process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime. Suffice it to observe that the argument under consideration is completely misplaced and needs to be rejected." 86. Further, it is required to refer herein that the Money Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences come under the of grave offences hence needs to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail as held by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Y. S Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. C. B. I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgments are being quoted as under:- "34. Economic offences cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deeprooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country." 88. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India through the Assistant Director Vs Kanhaiya Prasad (supra) has specifically observed that there remains no shadow of doubt that the consideration of the two conditions mentioned in Section 45 is mandatory, and that while considering the bail application, the said rigours of Se....