Mr.Ashok Ramchand Chugani v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India & Anr.

Mr.R. Sathyanarayanan for the Applicant. Mr.Sandeep K. Shinde and Mr.Mandar Goswami for the Union of India. Mr.J.P. Kharge, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 8, 2009 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2 The applicant has been arrested on 30thh September, 2009 for the offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. He 2 had filed an application for bail before the Sessions Court at Bombay which was rejected and thereafter, the present application has been filed. 3 Counsel for the applicant invited my attention to Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Section 45. So far as Section 44 is concerned, he invited my attention to sub-clause 2 of the said Act wherein it has been stated that the power of the High Court under Section 439 would not be affected by virtue of provisions of Section 44 sub-clause 1.

He, therefore, submitted that the High Court would have wider power to grant bail than the Special Court designated under Section 43. It was further submitted that the applicant has not been charged under Section 44 and therefore, restriction of power under Section 45 are not applicable in this case. It is submitted that minimum punishment would be three years and maximum punishable would be seven years. It is further submitted that two criminal cases have 3 been filed against the present applicant and in both these cases, charge sheet has been filed and he has been released on bail. 4 Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the applicant is arrested under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and that he is involved in Hawala transaction. He further submitted that he is a dutch national and has no fixed place of residence in Mumbai and also he had committed the offence of forgery and cheating.

It is submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he is likely to abscond. 5 There is some substance in the submission made by the respondent. The applicant is a dutch national and if released on bail, he is likely to abscond. Two cases have been filed against him. The statements of the applicant have been recorded wherein he has admitted having committed the said 4 offence which statements are admissible in evidence. Though he is released on bail in the said cases, the present complaint has been filed under Section 4 of the Money Laundering Act where the maximum punishment is seven years and hence, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. 6 Hence, application for bail is rejected.

(V.M. KANADE, J.)