No Material Evidence to Prove Commission of offences of Money Laundering: Jharkhand HC Grants Bail on bond [Read Order]

The Jharkhand High Court while entertaining a human trafficking case, granted bail to the petitioner on the grounds that no material evidence was found to prove the commissioner of offences of money laundering under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

According to the prosecution's case, the Anti Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU) in Khunti had lodged multiple cases against Panna Lal Mahto & others, as well as their associates, for the crime of human trafficking. The petitioner and others were named in the First Information Report (FIR), and a supplementary charge-sheet was also submitted, listing the main accused Pannalal Mahto, among others, including the petitioner.

A case was registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act as the offences stated above were part of the schedule to the PMLA. After investigation, a prosecution complaint has been submitted by ED. The specific role that has been attributed to this petitioner is that he was a close accomplice of Pannal Lal Mahto.

The petitioner was involved in an illicit conspiracy, operating a human trafficking network under the façade of multiple placement agencies in Delhi. Additionally, they would collect payment from households employing domestic workers on behalf of these workers, but failed to deliver the actual or promised wages to them. The placement agencies were running without any valid licence.

The prosecution also stated that the Petitioner aided Panna Lal Mahto in earning about Rs.4.5 Crore to Rs.5 Crore, as commission from the owners for the engagement of about 5000 persons who were facilitated to get work through his placement agency.

The Enforcement Directorate attached properties (Movable & Immovable) totally valued Rs.3,36,65,968.86/- vide Provisional Attachment  under the provisions of PMLA on the basis of materials gathered during the course of investigations carried out under the provisions of PMLA.

Adv. Rakesh Kuma, the counsel for the petitioner that in order to make out offence under Sections 3 or 4 of the P.M.L. Act, there should be some material to show that the accused was involved in laundering the money. The Petitioner has been enlarged on bail in the case for the scheduled offence.

The counsel also submitted that the attachment proceeding was initiated as per the prosecution complaint of the property of co-accused, Panna Lal Mahto and his wife. No immovable property of the petitioner has been the subject matter of attachment proceeding. Only one account of the petitioner has been shown in the prosecution complaint and the same has been attached having a balance of Rs.5,012.46/-.

The bench observed the submission of the petitioner counsel that although the petitioner has been separately proceeded against for the scheduled offence, there is no material against him to make out an offence of money laundering.

Conversely, Adv. Amit Kumar Das, the counsel of the enforcement department has vehemently opposed the prayer. It was submitted that it will be apparent that Laxmi Placement Agency in which the petitioner is said to be proprietor, transaction of Rs.1,95,000/- has been shown in the year 2014 and thereafter there has not been any substantial transaction.

Considering the arguments presented by the counsel and the balance in the petitioner's attached bank account, the bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Chaudhary granted the bail application.

Consequently, the aforementioned petitioner was released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of equal amounts each, satisfying the court below. The High Court also put one condition that one of the bailor (s) must be an Income Tax Payee, as per the prescribed condition.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates