Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 439—Bail—Money laundering case—As per allegations emanating from statements of persons recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, the petitioner had acquired and possessed the land comprising of 8.86 acres in the year 2010 and boundary wall was also constructed and it seems that only during the tenure of one Revenue Sub-Inspector there was a necessity to verify the land in question which seems to be farfetched and with an intent to prosecute the petitioner—Electric Meter installed in the said premises is in the name of another person and here also the presence of the petitioner in any tangible or intangible form is absent—Overall conspectus of case based on broad probabilities does not specifically or indirectly assign the petitioner to be involved in the acquisition and possession as well as concealment of land in question connected to the “proceeds of crime”—None of registers/revenue records bare imprint of direct involvement of petitioner in the acquisition and possession of the said land—Statement of some of persons under Section 50 of the PML Act designated the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of the property in question in the year 2010 without any material worth consideration and for all this while none of the ousted persons had approached the competent authority by registering any complaint which has conveniently been discounted by the Enforcement Directorate that the approaches though made to the Police proved futile—There was no reason for purported oustees from the land in question not to have approached the authorities for redressal of their grievance if at all the petitioner had acquired and possessed the said land when the petitioner was not in power—Claim of ED that its timely action had prevented illegal acquisition of land by forging and manipulating records seems to be an ambiguous statement—Consequence of findings recorded by the High Court satisfies the condition as at Section 45 of the PML Act to the effect that there is “reason to believe” that petitioner is not guilty of the offence as alleged—Though conduct of petitioner has been sought to be highlighted by the ED on account of the FIR instituted by petitioner against officials of the ED but on an overall conspectus of the case there is no likelihood of petitioner committing a similar nature of offence—Twin conditions as prescribed under Section 45 of the PMLA having been fulfilled—Petitioner is directed to be released on bail—Application allowed. [Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Sections 3, 4 & 45]
[Paras 61 to 64]