Hari Narayan Rai vs The Union of India (UOI)

R.K. Merathia, J.—This bail application arises out of E.C.I.R Case No. 01./PAT/09/AD/2009 registered u/s 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Money Laundering Act for short).

The prayer for bail of the Petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court on 26.11.2009 vide B.A. No. 7883 of 2009, against which, Petitioner filed SLP (Cr) No. 9586 of 2009 before Hon''ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 19.2.2010. The following order was passed:

We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

We are not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. However, the Petitioner is given liberty to renew his prayer for bail after a period of six months from today:

Mr. Binod Poddar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that in view of the said liberty, Petitioner moved for bail before the learned trial court, but such prayer was rejected on 28.8.2010 and therefore this bail application is being filed. He further submitted that investigation is complete and charge sheet has been submitted in this case. He further submitted that order has been passed for attaching all the properties of the Petitioner. He lastly submitted that Petitioner has remained in jail for about 17 months (including 43 days in hospitals).

He relied on 2002 (1) PLJR 63 (SC) and the order dated 3.9.2010, passed in B.A. No. 4392 of 2010 in the case of Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh.

On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Das, learned Counsel appearing for Directorate of Enforcement, opposing the prayer for bail, submitted as follows.

The orders granting bail to accused persons in oilier cases, in the facts and circumstances of those cases, are of no help to the Petitioner.

At the time of contesting election in 2005, the Petitioner declared his own and his wife''s assets together to the tune of about Rs. 1.90 Lakhs and 5.5 acres of agricultural land. The Petitioner, his wife, his brothers and their wives were not even income tax Assessee, but after becoming Minister, he purchased several big immovable properties in his name, in the name of his wife and family members, for projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property. After becoming Minister, he declared his income to the tune of Rs. 15.39 Lakhs, whereas in the charge-sheet, submitted in the Vigilance case, the total assets of the Petitioner disproportionate to his disclosed income was about Rs. 1.63 Crores after deducting his disclosed assets, which he acquired within a short span of 3 years, when he was a Minister. The firm floated by him for laundering his illegal money has been found non-existent.

Under Section 24 of the Money Laundering Act, the burden is on the Petitioner to prove that the proceeds of crime are untainted property, but there is no explanation on behalf of the Petitioner as to how he and his family members acquired huge assets, within a short span of 3 years, during which he was Minister. Section 45 of Money Laundering Act provides that bail is to be granted by the Court only on the satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit such offence while on bail.

The Petitioner is not allowing the trial to proceed as he has realized that his guilt will be proved. He adopted several delaying tactics in order to avoid the receipt of prosecution documents, for about 5 months. It was received only on 28th October, 2010 when such delaying tactics were disclosed in the counter affidavit filed in this bail application. The case has been fixed for charge, but adjournments are being taken on behalf of the Petitioner; on flimsy grounds. Thus, the Petitioner has been obstructing the progress of the cases. During 17 months of his judicial custody, he appeared only on 4-5 dates in Court.

Even after the bail of the Petitioner was rejected by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 19.2.2010, he avoided attending court on the purported ground of sickness on 26.2.2010, 5.3.2010 20.3.2010, 21.4.2010, 14.5.2010, 5.6.2010, 26.6.2010, 2.7.2010, 20.7.2010, 5.8.2010, 16.8.2010, 30.8.2010, 18.9.2010, 4.10.2010.

He lastly submitted that Physical possession of all (sic)he attached properties could not be taken till date.

In my opinion, the bail granted to accused persons of other criminal cases, in the facts and circumstances of those cases, and in exercise of discretion, are of no help to the Petitioner. Petitioner is involved in this case under Money Laundering Act which was not the position in the said cases relied on behalf of the Petitioner. His prayer for bail was earlier rejected by this Court on 26.11.2009 after considering the submissions made by the parties in detail. It was rejected by the Hon''ble Supreme Court also en 19.2.2010. It is true that Hon''ble Supreme Court gave liberty to the Petitioner to move for bail after six months but from the order sheet of the trial court, it is apparent that Petitioner is delaying the progress of the case on one pretext or the other. The provisions of Sections 24 and 45 of Money Laundering Act are stringent. The burden is on the Petitioner to prove that he is not guilty and while considering the prayer for bail, the Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty and he is not likely to commit such offence while on bail. The complaint (charge sheet) has been submitted in this case against the Petitioner. There are sufficient materials against him.

Prima facie, it is a case of loot and laundering of huge public money, by the Petitioner who claims himself to be a people''s representative. Petitioner is also abusing the process of law and making mockery of justice delivery system, as noticed above.

After hearing the parties at length and considering the entire matter carefully, in my opinion, Petitioner does not deserve bail in this case even, on the ground of liberty granted by Hon''ble Supreme Court, in view of the seriousness of the charges, the materials available in support thereof, the stringent provisions of Money Laundering Act, and his conduct in delaying the trial, as noticed above. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.