REET Paper Leak Case | Prima Facie Evidence Suggests Offence Of Money Laundering: Rajasthan High Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Accused
Rajasthan High Court has denied bail to Ram Kripal Meena, primarily accused of leaking and distributing question papers of the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers, 2021 (REET) for a payment of Rs 1.20 crores.The single judge bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar noted that 1.06 crores, cited by the prosecution as the 'proceeds of crime', was allegedly first received by the petitioner...
Rajasthan High Court has denied bail to Ram Kripal Meena, primarily accused of leaking and distributing question papers of the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers, 2021 (REET) for a payment of Rs 1.20 crores.
The single judge bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar noted that 1.06 crores, cited by the prosecution as the 'proceeds of crime', was allegedly first received by the petitioner from two other accused in exchange for question papers. Later, this amount was recovered from eight other people as per the information received from the accused himself. Looking into the gravity of the offence and the pendency of investigation under Section 173 CrPC, the bench sitting at Jaipur deemed it fit to deny bail.
“…there is ample evidence available against the accused implying that he obtained an amount of Rs.1.06 Crores by selling the REET, 2021 papers. The recovery of aforesaid amount from above eight persons further shows that the accused siphoned the proceeds of the crime to various persons. The recovery of Rs.1.06 Crores from the above persons exemplifies the use/concealment of the proceeds of crime by the present petitioner”, the court clarified.
Justice Bhatnagar also pointed out that Section 24 of PMLA casts a reverse burden on the accused to dispel the allegations levelled against them.
Earlier, Special Judge CBI Cases No.3, Jaipur had denied the regular bail application of the accused. The accused was arraigned for offences under Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992.
The court stated the legal proposition that establishing an offence under the PMLA requires the ED to demonstrate that there has been procurement of property which are “proceeds of crime” derived from the commission of offences prescribed under Part-A and Part-B of the Schedule. These proceeds of crime should have preceded the commission of scheduled offences and laundered later, the court added.
In this bail application under Section 439 before the High Court, according to the accused, ED could have only proceeded against him under Sections 3/ 4 of PMLA for offences prescribed under Part A and Part B of the Schedule. It was further submitted that the investigation so far does not indicate that the accused procured the amount in predicate offences and used or concealed it. It was also submitted that the main offence under Section 420 IPC was primarily against another person for purchasing the stolen question papers and not against the accused petitioner.
However, the court was of the opinion that Sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. fall within the ambit of the scheduled offence as specified under Part-A of the schedule, even though the provisions of the 1992 Act are absent in the schedule of PMLA. The court differed from the petitioner's version in its analysis and noted that there is prima facie evidence available against Ram Kripal as far as the commission of an offence under Section 3 of the Money Laundering Act is concerned.
“Whether, the predicate offence under Sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. is made out or not and whether the amount recovered from various persons is their legitimate amount or not, are the questions to be ascertained by the trial court, this Court cannot proceed into the intricacies of the case with regard to above issues, at the stage of bail…”, Justice Bhatnagar observed while denying bail.
The court then went on to examine Section 45 of PMLA which envisages the grant of bail. The court accordingly noted, after reading Sections 24 and 45 conjointly, that there is ample evidence suggesting the petitioner's role in entering the store room without authority for stealing question papers and then selling them to two other persons for 1.20 crores.
Before parting with the case, the court also added that the proviso to Section 45(1) is not applicable since the amount recovered as 'proceeds of crime' exceeds Rs 1 Crore.
Advocate S.S. Hora with Mr. Sahajveer Bawej appeared for the petitioner/accused. For the Enforcement Directorate, ASG R.D. Rastogi appeared with Advocates Akshay Bhardwaj, Devesh Yadav and Ayush Agarwal
Case Title: Ram Kripal Meena v. Director Of Enforcement
Case No: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12723/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 27