In Shashikant Kumar vs. Union of India and Mannu Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Others, the final order of Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra of Patna High Court refused to grant bail to the petitioner after considering the provisions under Section 45(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the gravity of the offence. The order noted the apparent involvement of the petitioners in the alleged concealment, possession and use of the properties acquired out of proceeds of crime.
The penultimate conclusion of the High Court's order dated April 23, 2024 reads: "....from perusal of records, it appears that there is enough material on the record to show that the petitioners were actively involved in acquisition, disposal and transfer of proceeds of crime in connivance with main accused Sumit Kumar along with other co-accused persons. Further, petitioners aided the main accused Sumit Kumar in laundering the amount of Rs. 31,92,70,129/-fraudulently from the account of CALA-cum-DLAO to the accounts of different persons/entities using various documents and also tried to convert the proceeds of crime into untaintedmovable and immovable properties. It also transpires from the materials on record that the accused-petitioners also purchased agricultural land below the market price using the proceeds of crime. Further from perusal of the records, it appears that the accused-petitioners are involved in hawala business and the allegation against the petitioners are grave and serious in nature. Further, it appears that accused-petitioners have direct involvement in receipt of proceeds of crime and further layering and laundering of proceeds of crime which make him liable for the offence of money laundering punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA."
Ansul, counsel for Shashikant Kumar, the petitioner had argued that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case by the investigating officer with a view to appease his senior officers on the score of solving the case. He submitted that during investigation, the petitioner was not found involved in the predicate offence and due to the same, the petitioner was not charge-sheeted in the said case, i.e. Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 02 of 2021 and this fact has also been admitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Complaint petition. The name of this petitioner has transpired in this case only on the basis of disclosure made by the co-accused Sumit Kumar, the then Branch Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Patna. He further submitted that if the confessional statements of co-accused person and petitioner which were recorded by ED are taken as a whole, then it becomes crystal clear that the petitioner was not having knowledge about the predicate offence and the petitioner could not be connected with any process related to the proceeds of crime. Except the statement of the co-accused amounting to confession, there is no cogent material against the petitioner to show his involvement in the alleged offence. He informed the Court that the petitioner is in custody since August 2, 2023 and has no criminal antecedent.
S.D. Sanjay, senior counsel for Mannu Singh, the petitioner argued that petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has been transpired during investigation by the Enforcement Department (ED) as some money was shown to have been transferred in the account of the petitioner from the account of the District Land Acquisition Officer. He submitted that the petitioner owns the enterprises registered under his mother’s and wife’s names, namely M/s Shakuntala Enterprises in which one Arun Kumar Dubey proposed to deposit Rs. 1.5 crores into the petitioner’s account for a business arrangement, promising a 5% commission. In total, an amount of Rs. 3.05 crores was transferred to the bank accounts of the petitioner and the enterprises registered under his mother’s and wife’s account. Subsequently, as the negotiations failed, the petitioner transferred Rs. 2.65 crores out of total Rs. 3.05 crores to various bank accounts as per instructions of Arun Dubey. The counsel stated that petitioner, at no point of time, was aware of the fact that the money which was transferred to the account of the petitioner, constitutes proceeds of crime. He also submitted that no properties or documents belonging to the petitioner or his enterprises have been confiscated, nor have any records or digital devices of the petitioner or his enterprises been requested/seized for retention under Section 8(3) of the PMLA. He informed the Court that the petitioner is in custody since August 18, 2023 and has no criminal antecedent. He also argued that the petitioner lacks mens rea and is not affiliated with any individual or group involved in the online betting or gaming business, which is the actual source of proceeds of crime.
He relied on a case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 (specially paragraph 388 thereof). Drawing on this decision of the Supreme Court, he stated that the prosecuting agency falls short of providing a prima-facie satisfactory explanation for arraying the petitioner as one of the accused. He further submitted that to constitute the offence of money laundering, the ED must prove a reasonable basis to believe that the offence has been committed. Reason to believe cannot be mere suspicion. Further referring to judgment reported in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) in which the Court has observed that ‘Bail is a rule and jail is an exception’ even in economic offences. The same has been reiterated in a number of cases thereafter. He also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 as also the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51. The senior counsel submitted that the petitioner satisfies the requirements of triple test as laid down in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement since reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791. He submitted that the petitioner should be granted the privilege of bail.
The High Court was not persuaded by the submission of both the counsels. The petitioners had approached the High Court to seek bail in connection with Special Trial (PMLA) P.S. case No. 03 of 2023 arising out of ECIR/PTZO/06/2021 dated July 16, 2021 instituted for the offences under Section 4 of the PMLA.
Mannu Singh, one of the two petitioners filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) in the Supreme Court on May 28, 2024. The respondents are the State of Bihar and the Union of India. It was registered on July 4, 2024 and verified on July 10, 2024. It was listed for hearing on July 15, 2024 before the bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Pankaj Mithal. The ordered issuance of notice. On September 23, 2024, Suryaprakash V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General, the Court granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. On October 18, 2024, the Court ordered that the matter be listed in the 2nd week of January 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment