Case Law Details
Rajkumari Vs Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement (Jharkhand High Court)
Conclusion: There was sufficient evidence collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate to prima facie come to the conclusion that assessee were actively involved in the offence of Money Laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA. There was nothing on record to satisfy the conscience of the Court that petitioners were not guilty of the said offence and the special benefit as contemplated in the proviso to Section 45 should be granted to the petitioners who were the lady and sick person respectively.
Held: Rajkumari and Genda Ram, the appellants applied Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for a grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered for the offence under Sections 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The investigation was initiated by recording the case against the accused persons on the basis of information received from FIR No. 13/2019 dated 13.11.2019 registered by the ACB, Jamshedpur. Subsequently, the Final Report had been filed by the investigating agency bearing no. 01/2020 dated- 11.01.2020 under Section 120-B and 201 IPC and under Section 7 (b) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against the accused persons, namely, Alok Ranjan and Suresh Prasad Verma. Further, in course of search proceeding conducted in relation to the instant case at different places under Section 17 PML Act to investigate the role of the accused persons and their close associates, it was found that part of the proceeds of crime acquired in the form of commission/bribe in lieu of allotment of tenders by the accused Veerendra Kumar Ram, a public servant. The said bribe money was getting routed to the bank accounts of family members of Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of bank accounts of Delhi based CA Mukesh Mittal ‘s employees/relatives. The prosecution complaint showed that various records, documents, digital devices, cash, jewellery, and vehicles were recovered and seized during the course of a search conducted on 21.02.2023 and during the investigation they were found accumulated through proceeds of crime. There were specific allegations against the accused namely Rajkumari that she knowingly assisted her husband who was co-accused in purchasing immovable properties in New Delhi in her name and the purchase consideration was paid from the proceeds of crime generated by her husband Veerendra Kumar Ram. Against the accused namely Genda Ram there was a specific allegation that he knowingly assisted his son Veerendra Kumar Ram who was co-accused to purchase immovable properties in New Delhi in his name to the tune of Rs 22.5 Crore from the commission/bribe amount, which was acquired by his son Veerendra Kumar Ram. Further, the bank account statements of the said petitioner reflect huge credits to the tune of Rs 4.525 crores. In connection with the alleged crime, petitioners had preferred Anticipatory Bail petition no. 1551 of 2023 and 1549 of 2023 for grant of pre-arrest bail but the same was rejected vide order dated 22.07.2023 passed by the court of, Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII-cum-Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi. It was held that there was sufficient evidence collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate to prima facie come to the conclusion that assessee were actively involved in the offence of Money Laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA. Further viewed that there was nothing on record to satisfy the conscience of the Court that petitioners were not guilty of the said offence and the special benefit as contemplated in the proviso to Section 45 should be granted to the petitioners who were the lady and sick person respectively.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Since both these applications are arising out of the common ECIR therefore with the consent of the parties disposed of by this common order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
