The Delhi High Court granted the bail on furnishing personal bond as there is no incriminating material to prove involvement in the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( PMLA ). It was viewed that prima facie the predicate offence appears to be weak in nature and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the same
Sanjay Jain, the petitioner filed the petition under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail.
The Enforcement Case Information Report ( ‘ECIR’ ) was registered against the petitioner and others based on FIR No. RC221/2021/E0009 dated 17.05.2021 registered by the CBI under Sections 120B read with 420 IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988.
It was alleged that the accused persons including the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and cheated and defrauded IFFCO, IPL, the general shareholders of these entities, as well as, the Government of India by fraudulently importing fertilizers and other materials at inflated prices and claimed higher subsidy thereby causing loss to the public exchequer. It is alleged that the commission from the supplies was siphoned off and the same was done through a complex web of fake commercial transactions through multiple companies which were owned by the accused persons to camouflage the fraudulent transactions as genuine.
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submitted that in order to initiate an investigation and subsequent prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [ “the PMLA” ] there should be a commission of a scheduled offence and there should be generation of proceeds of crime from such scheduled offence. The person sought to be prosecuted should be directly or indirectly involved in any process or activity connected with the said proceeds of crime and the money trail shall remain unbroken for curtailing the personal liberty of the accused.
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that there is no material showing imports at inflated prices by IFFCO/IPL and consequent payment of higher subsidy and there appears to be a break in the money trails, therefore, the evidence to prove conspiracy or wrongful loss to IFFCO/IPL, its shareholder and to the Public Exchequer and the resultant wrongful gain to the petitioner, is lacking. It was viewed that prima facie the predicate offence appears to be weak in nature and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the same.
The petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the fact that the main accused, as well as, some other accused have not been arrested and bail has already been granted to other co-accused.
The court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
“The petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and two Sureties of the like amount of which one should be of family member of the petitioner subject to the satisfaction of the Special Judge/ Trial Court/CMM/Duty”, the court held.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
