Patna High Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Accused In Money Laundering Case Due to Lack Of Satisfactory Explanation Of Assets And Cash Holdings

The prosecution case stemmed from a complaint filed under Sections 44 and 45 of the Act, alleging that the petitioner was accused in eight criminal cases registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.

Following an inquiry under the Act, the petitioner was chargesheeted in five of the aforementioned cases. It was alleged that the accused, including the petitioner, had acquired assets through the commission of scheduled offenses and had invested the proceeds of crime in acquiring substantial immovable properties, as well as maintaining unaccounted money in bank accounts.

The allegations further suggested that the illicit proceeds were utilized for acquiring movable and immovable properties in the petitioner's name and that of his family members, with the total value of immovable properties exceeding Rs. 3,99,33,000 (Rupees Three crore Ninety-nine Lakhs Thirty-three Thousand only).

Additionally, it was alleged that six bank accounts were discovered in the name of the petitioner and his family members, along with two vehicles and LIC policies. The total value of movable and immovable properties provisionally attached by the Authorized Officer was approximately about Rs. 4,04,29,415 (Rupees Four Crores Four Lakhs Twenty-nine Thousand Four Hundred Fifteen only).

Furthermore, it was alleged that properties worth Rs. 1,01,83,869 (Rupees One Crore One Lakh Eighty-three Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-nine only) connected to the petitioner had been attached, while properties valued at Rs. 94,03,280 (Rupees Ninety-four Lakhs Three Thousand Two Hundred Eighty only) were liable for confiscation.

Regarding bank accounts, it was alleged that between 18.01.2011 and 23.03.2018, substantial credits amounting to Rs. 13,80,000 (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Eighty Thousand only) had been observed, suspected to be proceeds of crimes.

The Court held:

“In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances and by taking note of facts as discussed above, where it appears that:

(a) Petitioner is accused in 8 criminal cases which appears “schedule offence” in terms of the Act, proceeds of which prima facie appears to create huge property and cash, further,

(b) Petitioner fails to furnish prima facie satisfactory explanation regarding huge fixed assets and cash available with him, while recording his statement under section 50(3) of the Act, where it appears to investigating agency that petitioner is not co-operating during investigation, where investigation regarding remaining proceeds of crime above Rs.4,04,29,415.29/- is still going on. (c) Therefore, this Court at this stage has no reasonable grounds for believing that petitioner is not guilty of offence and he is not likely to commit offence while on bail.

Hence, the prayer of bail of petitioner is rejected herewith.”

The above verdict was delivered by Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha.

Counsel For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocate

Counsel For the Union of India: Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, A.S.G.I Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, CGC Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, J.C. to A.S.G.

Counsel For the State: Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 106

Case Title: Chandrama Prasad Singh @ Chandrama Prasad @ Tuntun Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Another

Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No.20273 Of 2023

Click Here To Read Judgement