Order 31/01/2018
1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section
439 of Cr.P.C.
2. ECIR No. JPZO/09/2015 was registered with Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur for offence under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is only a Power of Attorney of one Rajendra who purchase the land from Girdawar who is Power of Attorney of Natha Ram. It is contended that petitioner was a bona fide seller and he sold on behalf of Rajendra as a Power of Attorney to Sky Light.
4. It is contended that the sale was executed way back in the year 2009. FIR was also filed with regard to the said allegation. Charge-sheet was also filed in that case. Now Directorate Enforcement has registered a case under the Prevention of Money (2 of 3) [CRLMB-611/2018] Laundering Act,2002.
5. It is contended that the maximum sentence provided for under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is seven years. Petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. It is also contended that under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, wherein, riders were put on granting of bail has been declared ultra vires by the Honble Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2017(13)SCALE609.
6. Learned counsel for the Union of India has opposed the bail application. His contention is that the matter is still under investigation and complaint is yet to be filed. It is also contended that Natha Ram was a non-existent person and Girdawar made a fake Power of Attorney and on the basis of fake Power of Attorney he sold the land to Rajendra and Rajendra, thereafter, gave a Power of Attorney to the present petitioner. Thus, the entire transaction was void ab initio.
7. It is also contended that Hari Ram also gave a Power of Attorney to Kishore Singh and Kishore Singh, thereafter gave a Power of Attorney to the present petitioner and on the basis of Power of Attorney, petitioner sold the property to Sky Light. It is also contended that Hari Ram was also a non-existant person and total sale consideration in this case is around Rs.30,00,000/-.
8. It is also contended that Power of Attorney was executed on 31.12.2009, whereas, the money was deposited in the account of the present petitioner on 29.12.2009 and the same was withdrawn by the petitioner on 1.1.2010. Thus, it is contended that petitioner does not have a valid Power of Attorney on the date, when he (3 of 3) [CRLMB-611/2018] received the money from Sky Light.
9. I have considered the contentions.
10. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner without commenting on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.
11. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (PANKAJ BHANDARI), J. Seema/24