- In the recent case of Anirudh Kamal Shukla vs Union of India through Assistant Director, ED the Allahabad HC has held that for money launderers, jail is a rule and bail is an exception. The Court stressed on the fact that money laundering is an economic threat to the national interest and is committed by white collar criminals who cannot be so easily traced.
- In the instant case, an anticipatory bail application was moved by Anirudh Shukla who had been booked under section 3 read with section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
- The allegations that were made against him were that he along with his brother had conspired with one R.K. Mishra and Vinny Sodhi for sanction of an overdraft limit for Rs. 24.6 lakhs for business purpose against the mortgage of property of Ram Nath Sharma and applied jointly along with the name of his brother Ashwani Kamal Shukla by submitting fake ITRs, PAN Card, NEC, Valuation report with respect of the property mortgaged, mutation certificate, will and sale deed.
- The investigation had also revealed that Rs.25,000 was transferred to the current account of the applicant on 6-11-2006 which was utilised in the business, which was admitted as tainted by the applicant.
- The Counsel for the ED had relied heavily upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Director vs. VC Mohan (2021) wherein it was held that the rigours of section 45 of PMLA would necessarily be attracted in case of petitioners who file applications for the grant of anticipatory bail.
- The Court referred to the case of Pankaj Grover vs Union of India (2021) where the Allahabad HC had observed that in socio-economic offences, the proceeds of crime are larger, and the offenders are c=economically sound, thus, if they are released on bail/anticipatory bail, their chances of absconding, not just within India but outside India are very high. Further, it was observed that their status and position provides them an opportunity to influence investigation and prosecution.
- The Court also observed that section 45 of PMLA provides twin conditions which are mandatory in nature, and must be complied with before releasing an accused on bail. The same had been reiterated in the case of Gautum Kundu vs Directorate of Enforcement (2015) SCC where the Apex Court had observed that the twin conditions mentioned in section 45,( i.e., that the prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused person is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail), have an overriding effect on the provisions of CrPC, in case of a conflict between the two.
- The Court also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement (2019) SCC where the SC had held that the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be granted only under exceptional circumstances.
- In light of the aforesaid observations, the Court observed that the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the applicant can be agitated at the stage of regular bail but not in the cases of anticipatory bail.
- Thus, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
