Case Law Details
Laxmikant Tiwari Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Chhattisgarh High Court held that bail application filed u/s. 439 of Cr.P.C. rejected as the applicant is unable to satisfy twin conditions for the grant of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002.
Facts- This is first bail application filed u/s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 registered at Police Station- Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal Office, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable u/s. 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (the PMLA, 2002).
The case of the prosecution is that during a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act conducted on 30.06.2022 one Mr. Suryakant Tiwari at a hotel room of Hotel Shereton Grand, Bengaluru, certain incriminating materials are said to have been found, based upon which a complaint was lodged by the Income Tax Department at the Kadugodi, Police Station Bengaluru alleging offences u/s. 186, 204 and 353 read with Section120B of the IPC which led to the registration of the FIR. Based up on the further investigation the Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR No. RPZO/09/2022and further investigation was conducted. In the course of the on the present applicant was summoned and finally the applicant was arrested on 13.10.2022.
Conclusion- Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has categorically recorded its finding that no case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 129/2022 and prosecution initiated any proceeding based upon this crime number and the petitioner is not an accused in Crime No. 129/2022, as such, the offence took place at Bengaluru in Crime No. 129/2022 cannot be predicated offence for registering a case under PMLA, 2002 by the ED at Chhattisgarh wherein the applicant along with co-accused Suryakant Tiwari and others are being charged for involving in a money laundering case and the present applicant has been arrested in money laundering case along with co-accused, therefore, even if it is presumed (not accepting it in absence of any better material on record or order from the competent court) that no predicate offence has been levelled, therefore, the applicant is entitled to get bail under PMLA, 2002, is not acceptable and deserves to be rejected.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
