- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Personal Liberty Cannot Be...
Personal Liberty Cannot Be Curtailed On Mere Suspicion And Half-Baked Investigation: Madras HC Grants Bail To PMLA Accused
Upasana Sajeev
14 Dec 2022 10:04 AM IST
While allowing the bail plea of a man charged under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Madras High Court reiterated that personal liberty could not be arbitrarily taken away unless in accordance with law.It is a settled law that the right of personal liberty and individual freedom, which is probably the most cherished, is not in any manner, arbitrarily to be taken away from anybody...
While allowing the bail plea of a man charged under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Madras High Court reiterated that personal liberty could not be arbitrarily taken away unless in accordance with law.
It is a settled law that the right of personal liberty and individual freedom, which is probably the most cherished, is not in any manner, arbitrarily to be taken away from anybody even temporarily without following the procedure prescribed by law.
The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, after observing that the petitioner was also suffering from a medical condition remarked that the man needed medical intervention.
A perusal of the medical reports produced by the petitioner would go to show the severity of the ailment the petitioner has been suffering for years together, the treatment he had been undergoing and the medical intervention he requires at once and the requirement of his personal liberty on health grounds too, which cannot be curtailed on the basis of mere suspicion of his role in the predicate offence and half-baked investigation.
Since there was no concrete ground for denial of personal liberty and being satisfied that the petitioner had complied with the twin conditions for granting bail, the court allowed the petition on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit the title deeds of immovable property worth 5 crores and executing a bond for a sum of rupees ten thousand.
Background
The petitioner, Narendra Kumar Gupta was arrested alleging that he had abetted in the offence of International Trade Based Money Laundering by receiving the proceeds of crime in the Bank Account of the Hong Kong Company owned by him and thereby caused loss of Foreign Exchange to the tune of Rs.22.60 Crores.
The petitioner, however, claimed that he was a mere scapegoat in the hands of one Sukhjeet. The petitioner contended that he had signed the documents shown to him by the said Sukhjeet under the impression that they were necessary to run a business in the name of the petitioner and in turn to avail a loan from Hong Kong Banks at lower rates.
The petitioner also claimed that three similarly placed persons, who were involved in the alleged offence were granted bail by the court on stringent conditions. Thus, the petitioner, who was suffering from a terminal disease was also entitled to bail.
The Enforcement Directorate objected to the grant of bail by submitting that the petitioner could not plead ignorance of the consequences of his own actions of signing the document and that he was responsible for the activities of the company under Section 70 of PMLA.
It was also submitted that bail could not be granted in offences of grave nature merely by citing health reasons when sufficient medical facility could be provided in the prison itself. It was also argued that in money laundering cases, the role of accuse would vary from person to person and thus bail granted to similarly placed persons was not binding on the present case.
The court however noted that the petitioner was not implicated as an accused in the FIR and the respondents had failed to prove direct link of the petitioner to the predicate offence. "The respondent has not come out with a prima facie case with regard to active participation of the petitioner in the scam with regard to alleged accumulation of 'Proceeds of Crime'," Court said.
Thus, as per the PML Act, there could not be any commission of offence of money laundering without any proceeds of crime.
Case Title: Narendra Kumar Gupta v State rep by Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 506
Case No: Crl OP No. 25190 of 2022
Next Story
