The Allahabad High Court rejected a bail application in a money laundering matter. The court observed that the role of the applicant is altogether different from that of the co-accused.
Brief Facts:
The applicant has been implicated in a case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. During PMLA investigation, it emerged that the funds amounting to Rs.1.36 Crore, raised abroad by PFI, CFI,and their related organizations, were routed to the Bank Accounts of K.A. Rauf Sherif, the National General Secretary of CFI. Further, the investigation against PFI revealed that more than Rs.100 Crore were deposited in the accounts of PFI and its related entities over the years. Foreign funds were remitted to India through hawala channels and remittances sent to the accounts of members/ activists/office bearers of PFI/CFI and other related organizations.
In the later investigation, the name of the present applicant came up and he was issued a summons to cooperate in the investigation.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case by the Enforcement Directorate. He submitted that there are three predicate offences relating to the issue in question wherein the present applicant was not named.
Further, he argued that the main conspirator in terms of para-10 of the complaint, namely, K.A. Rauf Sherif was enlarged on bail by the Special Court for PMLA Cases under the PMLA. The Counsel mentioned the existence of three main factors while granting bail to any accused person i.e. (a) the accused shall not tamper with the evidence; (b) the accused shall not influence the witness(s) and (c) the accused shall not be at flight risk; therefore, he contended, the gravity of the offence cannot be the sole ground to deny bail.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the funds amounting to Rs.1.36 Crore, raised abroad by PFI, CFI, and their related organizations, were routed to the Bank Accounts of K.A. Rauf Sherif. Initially, the active participation of five accused persons was noticed, through reliable evidence and materials, whose names have been indicated in the first complaint but after further investigation, the name of the present applicant came to the notice; therefore, in the supplementary complaint, the applicant was made an accused.
Further, the Counsel stated that the role of the present applicant is very serious and he, being a big businessman based in Abu Dhabi, if released on bail, may abscond, or may influence the trial proceedings as the trial is pending consideration before the learned trial court where the charges have been framed. He has also submitted that the role of the present applicant is altogether different from that of co-accused Sidhique Kappan, who has been granted bail by this Court on 23.12.2022, since the role assigned to Sidhique Kappan is in respect of hatching a criminal conspiracy with K.A. Rauf Sherif.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that a person may not be involved in the original criminal activity that had resulted in the generation of proceed of crime but he can join the main accused either as an abettor or a conspirator for committing the offence of money laundering by helping him in laundering the proceed of crime. Therefore, just because the applicant was not named or not prosecuted for the predicate offence, his prosecution for money laundering cannot be said to be illegal. Further, the Court noted that the role of the present applicant is altogether different from that of co-accused Sidhique Kappan as the present application is based in Abu Dhabi and the proceed of crime is in crores, therefore, the present applicant cannot claim parity with co-accused Sidhique Kappan.
The decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court, rejecting the bail application, directed the learned trial Court to conclude the trial with expedition, preferably within a period of six months by fixing a short date and no unnecessary adjournment shall be given to any of the parties.
Case Title: Abdul Razak Peediyakkal v Union Of India Enforcement Directorate Thru. Assistant Director
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Case no.: CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 7719 of 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Pranav Agarwal
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Kuldeep Srivastava, and Mr. Shiv P. Shukla
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
