The Telangana High Court has refused to grant Anticipatory Bail on the grounds that the grant of anticipatory bail in Money Laundering Cases may frustrate investigation and make it difficult for investigating agencies to collect evidence.
The allegations against the accused are that he is the main conspirator and has derived proceeds of crime in the form of movable and immovable assets. The accused along with other IMS officials and private persons is alleged to have conspired and misappropriated the allocation of purchase orders meant for procuring medicines and medical equipment.
The alleged actions of the accused and others have resulted in huge loss to the State exchequer which is approximately Rs. 211 Crore. Crime proceeds amounting to Rs. 144,42,67,813/- were traced, which include the proceeds generated by the accused. Other allegations include, creation of shell companies to supply drugs and medicines at inflated prices, bribing and influencing public servants, etc.
According to the DOE, the Petitioner was summoned under Section 50 of the PMLA. However, he has remained non-cooperative and has failed to divulge the proceeds of crime and the names of other officials, bureaucrats and politicians involved in the crime. Therefore, the DOE sought the custody of the accused for further investigation. According to the accused the ECIR was registered based on the FIRs filed by the ACB, Telangana. The ECIR was registered in 2019 and the accused has always cooperated with the investigation and has appeared 11 times before the authorities and has furnished all the relevant documents.
They have conducted searches in the residential and office premises of the accused and have also attached his properties as alleged proceeds of crime. Therefore, the investigation by the DOE is at the stage of completion.
The DOE had enclosed the grounds of arrest along with the arrest order in Form No.III issued under Rule 6 of the Rules, 2005. In the grounds of arrest, details about the registration of crime, issuance of summons, recording of statements, etc. are specifically mentioned. It was also stated that the respondents are not cooperating in the investigation. Therefore, according to the DOE, considering the seriousness and graveness of the allegations, the respondent was arrested and produced before the Designated Court along with application under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. Thus, according to the DOE, the authorised officer has sufficient material in his possession to believe that the respondent is guilty of the offences under the PMLA.
The single bench of Justice K.Lakshman has held that Section 45 of the PMLA, the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the facts of the case and the nature of allegations, this Court could not, prima facie, satisfy itself that the accused is not guilty. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
The court directed that the accused in both the cases be directed to surrender before the Designated Court within ten days from today. The Designated Court is directed to consider the application of remand afresh in accordance with law.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
