Court grants anticipatory bail to jeweller accused in money laundering case

The court granted the relief in the view that no recovery is to be made on the instance of the Goel. The case is related to alleged fraud in a bank account.

Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna granted anticipatory bail to Pradeep Goel on furnishing a personal bond and surety bond of Rs two lakh to the satisfaction of the investigating officer/ arresting officer subject to conditions imposed by the court.

Pradeep Goel sought an anticipatory bail in the money laundering case. According to the applicant, he had apprehension for being arrested by the ED.

While granting relief the court said, "After a lapse of more than ten years since the alleged offence and more than three years since registration of FIR and ECIR and in view of search and seizure already done, nothing is to be recovered or discovered at the instance of the applicant."

The court also discussed the delay aspect while disposing of the plea and said, "Delay is an important aspect to be considered as also the need to arrest."

"It is important to note that there is a delay in complaining as after the lapse of 'five years' of declaration of fraud, the bank reported the matter to CBI. CBI opted not to arrest the applicant for fraud. At this belated stage, no useful purpose would be served with the arrest or custody of the applicant," the court said.

The court also said in the reply that the ED has failed to show substantial reasons to arrest the applicant or for his custodial interrogation particularly when it has been more than 10 years since the offence and more than 3 years since the registration of ECIR and more than one year since search and seizure by the ED.

The court said that Under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, the bail conditions are stringent and when the bail is opposed by the Public Prosecutor, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence but the condition can be relaxed in favour of a sick or infirm person.

"In this case, so far as the element of guilt in the process of alleged money laundering is concerned, when the commission of scheduled offence itself has been tentative, the assessment of guilt would be a pre-mature exercise," the court emphasized.

The court pointed out that although the claim of the applicant that he is sick or infirm is denied documents relied upon by the applicant on this aspect have not been disputed or described as forged or fabricated. On examining the documents so relied upon, apparently, the applicant requires special diet and care.

The Court noted that the applicant has joined the investigation on various occasions in response to the summons issued by ED.

The search and seizure has already been done under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, as well as properties, have been attached, the court further noted.

"There is no categorical statement coming from the investigating officer or from the Special Prosecutor that custodial interrogation of the applicant is needed," the judge said.

The court observed, "It is clear from the contentions of the reply filed by the Enforcement Directorate that they require presence of the applicant to join the investigation as and when called for. Even the apprehension of the applicant qua arrest has been questioned on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate."

On 28.06.2021 Bank of India being the consortium leader of six banks, lodged a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with respect to credit facilities advanced in favour of M/s Shree Raj Mahal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd (SRMJPL).

It was alleged in the complaint that 'fraud' had taken place in the account of M/s SRMJPL which was initially constituted as partnership firm in the year 2008 and later on converted into a private limited company in the year 2009.

The complainant bank sanctioned / disbursed Rs.45 crores in 2010 against hypothecated stocks (gold, diamond, silver and precious stones) while in the year 2013, the credit facilities were enhanced to Rs.100 crores under the consortium arrangement and it was further increased to Rs.125 crores in the year 2014 and other banks joining as consortium members.

The CBI had registered the FIR under Section 406, 420 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act dated 16.07.2021.

Thereafter the ED had registered an ECIR on 06.09.2021 and despite the lapse of three years neither the prosecution complaint nor any closure report has been filed.

Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa along with Naveen Sharma, Prabhav Ralli and Nimisha Jain appeared for Goel.

It was argued that the predicate offence of cheating will not survive, as the order declaring fraud of the account of the company was set aside on the ground of non-compliance of the principle of natural justice.

The approval under 17A was also denied by the bank against the officials. The existence of predicate offence itself was questionable. (ANI)