[ad_1]
Sidhique Kappan v. Directorate of EnforcementIn the Excessive Court docket of AllahabadCrl. Misc. B.A. 13642/2022Before Justice D.Okay. SinghDecided on December 23, 2022
Relevancy of the Case: Bail utility in a case involving cash laundering allegations via fraudulent transactions
Statutes and Provisions Concerned
The Prevention of Cash Laundering Act, 2002 (Part 3, 4, 44, 45)
The Data Know-how Act, 2000 (Part 65, 72, 76)
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Part 120B, 124, 153A, 295A)
The Illegal Actions (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Part 17, 18)
Related Info of the Case
The accused applicant, an accredited press reporter for Azhimukham.com, was travelling to Hathras to cowl an incident.
The U.P. Police arrested him for offences below the Data Know-how Act, 2000, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Illegal Actions (Prevention) Act, 1967. Within the case above, the Supreme Court docket granted bail to the accused applicant on September 9, 202e.
Nevertheless, earlier than his launch, the police filed a criticism below Sections 3, 4, 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 and took cognisance taken on February 10, 2022.
The criticism accused the applicant and co-accused of taking part in a conspiracy led by Okay.A. Rauf Sherif, PFI Secretary, to disturb communal concord, incite riots, and fund anti-CAA protests.
The investigation revealed that Rauf Sherif and his associates fraudulently collected ₹1.36 crores from overseas via bogus transactions. This cash qualifies as proceeds of crime linked to worldwide commerce. They utilised these funds for legal actions, together with offences below UAPA.
The accused-applicant performed a task within the conspiracy by sustaining ties with PFI, staying in common contact with its workplace bearers, and actively taking part in the usage of proceeds of crime. He additionally travelled to Hathras with the co-accused and transferred funds as per Rauf Sherif’s directions.
The accused-applicant filed a bail utility.
Distinguished Arguments by the Advocates
The accused-applicant’s counsel:
He argued that the criticism lacks particular particulars on the accused-applicant’s involvement in dealing with the proceeds of crime. For instance, there may be an absence of specified quantities, apart from the ₹5,000 transferred to Atikur Rahman’s account, resulting in a mere bald allegation.
The counsel asserted that the accused-applicant’s affiliation with PFI, even when assumed true, doesn’t represent an offence below Part 3 of the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
Moreover, the counsel argued that the dual circumstances below Part 45 of the PMLA, 2002 usually are not relevant because the proceeds of crime handled by the accused-applicant quantity to solely Rs. 5,000, falling in need of the ₹1 crore threshold required to set off these circumstances.
The respondent’s counsel:
He argued that the accused-applicant is part of the gang led by Okay.A. Rauf Sherif. The entire proceeds of crime exceeds ₹1 crore, as per the criticism.
He additional contended that since they’ve utilised your complete quantity for scheduled offences, the circumstances below Part 45 of the PMLA are glad. Therefore, the applicant isn’t eligible for the grant of bail.
Opinion of the Bench
Other than ₹5,000, no different transactions had been present in both the accused-applicant or the co-accused’s account. Even when a portion of the proceeds of the crime was transferred, it might not sufficiently set up the accused-applicant’s involvement within the bigger sum obtained by Okay.A. Rauf Sherif.
Twin circumstances below Part 45 usually are not fulfilled. The applicant deserves to be launched on bail.
Ultimate Choice
The bench granted the bail utility.
[ad_2]
Source link
