Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. K. Ramakrishna, filed a third successive bail petition under Section 439 of CrPC (read with Section 483 BNNS) in connection with Special C.C. No. 780/2022 arising out of ECIR/BGZO/9/2020, for alleged offences under Sections 3, 70, 4 and 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The petitioner was the President of Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha and other entities. The Enforcement Directorate alleged that the bank induced deposits from the public and laundered the proceeds through shell companies. The petitioner had earlier filed two bail petitions before the High Court, both dismissed, and the Supreme Court also dismissed the special leave petition. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Trial Court under Section 479(1) of BNNS, which was also rejected. The present petition was filed on the ground of change in circumstances, arguing that the arrest was illegal due to non-compliance of Section 19(1) of PMLA and that no complaint under Section 3 of PMLA was filed. The court examined whether there was any material change in circumstances. It noted that the grounds raised were already considered in the earlier orders. The court reiterated the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, which require the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court found that the petitioner failed to satisfy these conditions. The court also observed that the petitioner was the President of the bank and played a key role in the alleged money laundering. The court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no change in circumstances and that the petitioner was not entitled to bail.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Successive Bail Petition - Change in Circumstances - The court held that a successive bail petition is maintainable only if there is a material change in circumstances after the rejection of the earlier petition. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any such change, as the grounds raised were already considered in previous orders. (Paras 1-5) B) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Bail - Twin Conditions under Section 45 - The court reiterated that under Section 45 of PMLA, bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The petitioner did not satisfy these conditions. (Paras 6-10) C) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Arrest and Remand - Compliance with Section 19(1) - The court rejected the argument that the arrest was illegal due to non-compliance of Section 19(1) of PMLA, as the petitioner had already been remanded to judicial custody and the issue was previously considered. (Paras 11-15) D) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Prima Facie Case - Proceeds of Crime - The court found that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner, who was the President of a cooperative bank that induced deposits and laundered money through shell companies. The gravity of the offence and the petitioner's role were considered. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a PMLA case on the ground of change in circumstances, particularly the alleged non-compliance of Section 19(1) of PMLA and the non-filing of a complaint under Section 3 of PMLA.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal petition, holding that there was no change in circumstances and the petitioner did not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA. The petitioner was not entitled to bail.
Law Points
- Successive bail petition
- change in circumstances
- twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA
- prima facie case
- gravity of offence
- Section 439 CrPC
- Section 483 BNNS
