The Patna High Court rejected bail of a Bihar property dealer accused of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) case as no satisfactory explanation was given regarding the huge fixed assets and cash.
It was alleged that accused persons including the petitioner, Chandrama Prasad Singh, have acquired assets by commission of schedule offences and have invested the proceeds of crime in acquiring huge immovable properties and also unaccounted money deposited with banks.
It was further alleged thereof that the proceeds of crime were utilized for acquisition of movable/immovable properties in name of petitioner and also in the name of his family members, where the value of immovable properties was more than Rs. 3,99,33,000 (Rupees Three crore Ninety-nine Lakhs Thirty-three Thousand only).
The allegation further suggested that six bank accounts were found in name of petitioner and his family members along with two vehicles and LIC policies. The total value of movable & immovable properties comes to approximately about Rs. 4,04,29,415/- (Rupees Four Crores Four Lakhs Twenty-nine Thousand Four Hundred Fifteen only), which has been provisionally attached by the Authorized Officer.
The senior counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and law-abiding person and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in the present case out of ulterior motive. It is submitted that petitioner is on bail in all eight cases.
It was submitted that the onus is on the prosecution to show the schedule offences, proceeds of the crime and a connecting link between these two but, in present case, no such link established prima facie as to incriminate petitioner and, as such, entire implication against the petitioner is based upon assumption and suspicion.
A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha observed that “Petitioner fails to furnish prima facie satisfactory explanation regarding huge fixed assets and cash available with him, while recording his statement under section 50(3) of the Act, where it appears to investigating agency that petitioner is not co-operating during investigation, where investigation regarding remaining proceeds of crime above Rs.4,04,29,415.29/- is still going on.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
