Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Jagannath Temple Priest In Money Laundering Case Under PMLA

The Supreme Court today (November 21) granted anticipatory bail to Jagannath Temple Priest, Rajkumar Daitapati in relation to PMLA proceedings initiated against him for alleged offence of money laundering.

The petitioner, stated to be a generational priest of the Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri, Orrisa has been arrayed in proceedings under S. 3 and 4 of the Prevention for Money Laundering Act 2002 in connection with an FIR registered by a few foreign nationals. The FIR is against one Mr Kuldeep Sharma and his wife Ms Aparna Sharma for offences of cheating and fraud to the tune of USD 232,568 over the sale of a certain property.

The petitioner was given Power of Attorney by the foreign nationals(complainants) to oversee the case and act as an intermediary to conclude settlements and receive monies on behalf of the foreigners.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar noted that as per the agreement between the parties, the appellant was to receive 92 Lakhs on behalf of the foreign nationals, but so far had only deposited 80 lakhs with the RBI(as alleged proceeds of crime).

The bench agreed to grant anticipatory bail on the condition that an additional 20 lakhs remaining sum with interest) be deposited by the petitioner with the RBI within 3 weeks. Complainants would then be permitted to remit the sum after due compliance with formalities. The bench further directed

"Appellant shall also be released on bail in the event of being arrested in connection with ECIR no... Enforcement Directorate v. Rajkumar Daitapati...for the offences punishable under S.3 read with S.4 of the PMLA 2002."

The Court also set aside the Rajasthan High Court Order which had dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.

"The Impugned judgement is set aside and the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. We however clarify that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be considered as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. In addition, the appellant will now comply with the conditions under S. 438(2) of CrPC." the Court added further.

The petitioner was represented by Sr Advocate Atmaram NS Nadkarni along with AOR Salvador Santosh Rebello and Advocate Raghav Sharma

The Rajasthan High Court in its order dated 11.11.2021 dismissed the anticipatory bail application on the grounds that the petitioner had not challenged the Special Court's Order of September 17, 2021, where the petitioner's pleas under S. 70(2) of the CrPC for conversion of non-bailable warrant into bailable warrant, was rejected.

Notably, S. 70(2) provides that any warrant issued by a Court will prevail to be in operation until it is cancelled by the issuing Court or until it is executed.

Before the Top Court, the petitioner argued that the High Court order was contrary to the High Court's ruling in Rajvir Singh v.State of Rajasthan, where the Court held that the grant of bail in economic offences cannot depend on factors such as issuance of bailable or non-bailable warrants .

The Counsels for the petitioner also contended that the alleged proceeds of crime have already been deposited with the ED through the Provisional Attachment Order(s) dated 21.09.2016 and 29.06.2017. The plea further states that the petitioner has neither been "named as an accused in the original FIR No.17/2010 nor was he subsequently arrayed in the proceedings after investigation."

It adds that the petitioner has been wrongly arrayed in the PMLA proceedings arising out of FIR 17/2010 which was already stayed in the High Court on October 3, 2013- 7 years before the Special Court took cognizance in its order dated December 24, 2010 for offences under S.3 and 4 of the PMLA. It pointed that "since 2013, the original Complainant(s)/foreign national(s) have not joined investigation before any investigating agency and are untraceable for investigation. Despite the same, and without affording any justification, the Enforcement Directorate preferred to initiate the instant proceedings without even recording the statement of the original Complainant(s)"

Case Details : RAJKUMAR DAITAPATI vs. DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT| SLP(Crl) No. 9517/2021