The Allahabad High Court denied bail to MLA from Mau Assembly Seat in State of Uttar Pradesh, Abbas Ansari in money laundering case.
The applicant was arrested by the investigating agency in context with the instant ECIR. The statement of the applicant was recorded. A supplementary complaint was also filed by the investigating agency. The special court has taken cognizance. In the aforesaid backdrop, the present applicant filed his first bail application under Sections 44/45 of the PMLA.
Kapil Sibal appearing for the applicant submitted that the present applicant is in no way connected to the firm M/s. Vikas Construction nor the present applicant had anything directly or indirectly to do with the daily affairs of the said firm M/s. Vikas Construction. The said firm operates its own business through its partner and the present applicant is neither a partner nor an authorized signatory nor he has any authority or control to deal with the funds belonging to the said partnership firm. There is no material to indicate that the applicant had any connection with the properties acquired by the said firm or in respect of the money/funds of the said firm.
It was submitted that merely because some partners in the firm M/s. Vikas Construction are related to the applicant, it does not mean that he too is a partner in crime. Hence, the applicant has been falsely implicated and even though in the investigation the trail of money has not been satisfactorily connected to the applicant yet he has been apprehended and is languishing in jail since 04.11.2022.
Rohit Tripathi, counsel appearing for the investigating agency has submitted that there is a distinction between the predicate offence and the offence under sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. It was submitted that the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has primarily based his submission on the premise that though the proceedings were initiated in context with three FIRs relating to predicate offence and as per the Senior Counsel for the applicant, no case is made out against the applicant in the predicate offence, accordingly the proceedings against the applicant for the offence under the PMLA will also falter, is not quite correct.
A Single Bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh observed that “Considering the family antecedents of the applicant including the statement which is contained in the ECIR that the applicant initially was not co-operative rather evaded the summons and only when the lookout notice was issued and in furtherance thereof the applicant was apprehended and during custody he gave his statements but nevertheless many of the transactions could not be explained by him by taking a plea that he did not know from where the fund was coming rather whenever he wanted the funds he asked his mother and maternal uncle and grand father who would arrange the funds.”
“Thus taking an overall view including the gravity of offence including the fact that the witnesses of fact are yet to be examined also keeping in mind the dictum of the Apex Court in Pavana Dibbur and for all the reasons aforesaid, this Court is unable to persuade itself to form a, prima facie, satisfaction in terms of Section 45 of the PMLA, at this stage, that the applicant is not guilty or that he may not commit an offence on bail. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the bail application is rejected” the Court noted.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
