The Supreme Court has granted the bail to the accused in a money laundering case linked to illegal sand mining.
The court observed that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the complaints do not indicate that the appellants are guilty of offence of money-laundering. Nothing was pleaded to show that the appellants are involved in any other offence of money-laundering under the PMLA. The allegation of tampering with the evidence has not been made. Both the appellants have undergone incarceration for a period of about 01 years approximately.
The court stated that allegations of large scale illegal mining against the accused, but that is not sufficient. Prima facie, there must be factual assertions in the complaints to show that the offences which are named as scheduled offences on the basis of which complaints are filed, directly or indirectly, generated proceeds of crime.
The court noted that the first offence mentioned in both the complaints is not a predicate offence at all, as apart from Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, no other scheduled offence is mentioned in the First Information Report.
The court found that the connection between these First Information Reports complaints and the alleged proceeds of crime has not been pleaded. In the first complaint there is a reference to several offences registered at different places. However, there is no prima facie material to show that the offences pleaded, directly or indirectly, generated proceeds of crime in the form of money or illegally mined minerals.
Facts
The appellants have been shown as accused in two successive complaints filed by the Directorate of Enforcement alleging commission of offences under the Prevention of Money- laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
In paragraph 1 of the first complaint, under the heading ‘FIR No./Complaint No. or Police Report/Nature of Schedule Offences’, five First Information Reports have been referred. Even in the second complaint in paragraph 1, four out of five First Information Reports referred to in paragraph 1 of the first complaint, have been incorporated.
Conclusion
The court held that a case is made out for enlarging the appellants on bail. For that purpose, we direct that the appellants shall be produced before the Special Court under the PMLA within a maximum period of one week from today. The Special Court shall enlarge the appellants on bail on appropriate terms and conditions.
Case Details
Case Name: Bhagwan Bhagat V/S Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr.
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3392 OF 2024
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
Decision Date: 12/08/2024
