Telangana High Court rejects anticipatory bail
Telangana High Court rejects anticipatory bail
In accordance with the law, the designated court was directed to consider the application of remand afresh
The Telangana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail on the grounds that in money laundering cases, it may frustrate investigating agencies and make it difficult for them to collect evidence.
The single bench of Justice K Lakshman held that under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the law laid down by the Supreme Court and due to the nature of the allegations, the court was not able to satisfy itself that the accused was not guilty. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application was being dismissed.
The allegations against the accused were that he was the main conspirator and had derived proceeds of the crime in the form of movable and immovable assets. Along with other Indian Medical Service (IMS) officials and private persons, he allegedly conspired and misappropriated the allocation of purchase orders meant for procuring medicines and medical equipment.
The alleged actions of the accused and others resulted in a loss to the State exchequer, amounting to approximately Rs.211 crores. The crime proceeds amounting to Rs.144,42,67,813 were traced, which included the proceeds generated by the accused. The other allegations included the creation of shell companies to supply the drugs and medicines at inflated prices, bribing and influencing the public servants.
According to the Directorate of Enforcement (DOE), the petitioner was summoned under PMLA. However, he remained non-cooperative and failed to divulge the proceeds of the crime and the names of other officials, bureaucrats and politicians involved in the crime. The DOE, therefore, sought the custody of the accused for further investigation.
According to the accused, the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered based on the FIRs filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Telangana. The ECIR was registered in 2019 and he had cooperated with the investigation, appearing 11 times before the authorities and furnished all relevant documents.
The accused further stated that the investigating agencies had conducted searches at his residential and office premises and also attached his properties as the alleged proceeds of the crime. The investigation by the DOE was, thus, at the stage of completion.
But the DOE had enclosed the grounds of arrest along with the arrest order under Rule 6 of the Rules, 2005. The grounds of arrest, details about the registration of the crime, the issuance of summons and the recording of statements were specifically mentioned.
It was also stated that the respondent was not cooperating in the investigation. Considering the seriousness and graveness of the allegations, the DOE arrested and produced him before the designated court along with the application under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The DOE claimed that the authorized officer had sufficient material in his possession to believe that the respondent was guilty of the offences under PMLA.
The court directed that the accused be asked to surrender before the designated court within 10 days.
