Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1050 (JHR)

Sanjay Rampal v. State of Jharkhand

2019-05-14

ANIL KUMAR CHAUDHARY

body2019
ORDER : Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with ECIR Case No. 01 of 2018 (ECIR/03/PAT/12/PMIA) registered under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 2002. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners are the partners of the firm M/s. Sunny Construction & Company and the petitioners have been charged with Schedule Offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988 and both the petitioners were involved in criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct through which both of them as partners of M/s. Sunny Construction & Company became beneficiary of proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 60.30,625/- and projected the said proceeds of crime as untainted. It is further alleged that M/s. Sunny Construction & Company and others submitted 17 fake invoices of bitumen covering 219.726 MT worth Rs. 60,30,625/and received payment against 17 fake invoices and e-mail dated 22.03.2017 received by the Enforcement Directorate from the Branch Manager. State Bank of India. Hazaribagh shows that the proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 60,30,625/-was first placed in the banking system by M/s. Sunny Construction & Company. and Thereafter the same was layered and laundered by way of making numerous . payments to various parties thereby projecting the same as untainted money. It is further submitted that the allegation. against the petitioners are all false, It is,. next, submitted that against the order passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi in O.C. No. 855 of 2017, the petitioners have preferred art appeal before the appropriate authority and the same is pending for final adjudication. It is also submitted that the. property acquired by the petitioners is not the outcome of the money generated by committing the schedule offence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege. of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement on the ' other hand objected. It is also submitted that the. property acquired by the petitioners is not the outcome of the money generated by committing the schedule offence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege. of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement on the ' other hand objected. to the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that subsequent to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India and others, reported in MANU 1 SC/l480/2017, Section. 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has been amended. Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 consequent upon its amendment vide Act No.13 of 2018 reads as under: "45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-(1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 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 : Provided that a person, who is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs : Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by- (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or a special order made in this behalf by that Government. (1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed;] (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in (***) of sub-section (1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail." 5. It is then submitted that the amended Section 45 of the Prevention of (Money Laundering Act does not suffer r from the vice of violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioners of laundering money to the tune of Rs.60,30,625/- and the said amount is the outcome of the money generated by committing the schedule offence and the petitioners along with co-accused persons generated the proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 30,15,125/-which was attached by way of provisional attachment order No. 04 of 2017 dated 15.11.2017 and subsequently confirmed by Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 23.04.2018 along with a finding that the said attached properties are involved in money laundering under Section 8(3) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act as no bitumen was ever procured from Government Oil Companies against the authority letters by the petitioners being the partners of M/s. Sunny Construction & Company and as the petitioners being partners of said M/s. Sunny Construction & Company have submitted 17 fake invoices of quantity 219.726 MT of bitumen worth Rs. 60.30,625/-. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement that the proceeds of 17 forged invoices were tainted and was also proved during the trial of schedule offence and the same was projected by the petitioners as untainted money till 2017. It is next submitted that there is no material available in the record for believing that the petitioners are not guilty of the offence punishable under the provision of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is next submitted that there is no material available in the record for believing that the petitioners are not guilty of the offence punishable under the provision of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is next submitted that the petitioners are influential persons and there is every chance of their tampering with the evidence if enlarged on bail, hence keeping in view the seriousness of the offence, they ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the serious nature of direct allegation against the petitioners of money laundering and the chance of their tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly. the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. 7. In view of the dismissal of the anticipatory bail applications the interlocutory application No. 8933 of 2018 of A.BA No. 6376 of 2018 stands disposed of being in fructuous. Application dismissed.