Santosh Yadav V. Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement

B.A./3306/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Santosh Yadav, who was in custody since March 22, 2023, related to an Enforcement Case Information Report (E.C.I.R.) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (P.M.L.A.), 2002. The prosecution alleged that Yadav was involved in cyber fraud, with proceeds amounting to Rs. 15,24,500 seized during a raid in 2017. The petitioner had previously been granted bail in a related criminal case but was later taken into custody under the P.M.L.A. charges. The court considered the duration of custody, the progress of the trial, and the nature of the allegations before granting bail.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 821594 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: P.M.L. Act, 2002, IPC, I.T. Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KUMAR; SAURAV KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT KUMAR; BIPIN MEHTA
• Keywords: Cyber Fraud; Proceeds of Crime; Regular bail; Income Tax Payee
• Section: 3; 4; 66B; 66D; 420; 419; 66C

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 3306 of 2023 Santosh Yadav . .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Bipin Mehta, Advocate For the ED : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate …... 03/ 03.07.2023. Petitioner above-named who is in custody since 22.03.2023 has moved this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with E.C.I.R. Case No.06 of 2022 registered under Sections 3 & 4 of P.M.L. Act, 2002. Heard the parties. As per the case of prosecution, a raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner on 02.11.2017 in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case No.351 of 2017 under Sections 419 & 420 IPC and Sections 66B, 66C and 66D of the I.T. Act in which amount of Rs.15,24,500/- was seized as proceeds of crime. Sections 419 & 420 IPC being the scheduled offence, PMLA case being Case No.ECIR/ RNSZO/03/ 2018 was recorded and prosecution complaint has been filed on 29.08.2022. After submission of the prosecution complaint, cognizance has been taken and the charge has also been framed. It is further submitted that petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail in connection with Madhpur P.S. Case No.351 of 2017 vide B.A. No.10628 of 2018 and in the instant case, under PML Act, out of eight witnesses, four witnesses have been examined and the petitioner is in custody for about 3 months. With regard to recovery of the amount, it is submitted that petitioner sold his agricultural land i.e. part of his ancestral land to one Jaibun Bibi and he received the said amount as part of consideration amount from her. He has been remanded in the case after submission of the charge-sheet and during pendency of the investigation in the case of PML Act, he was not apprehended rather he had voluntarily surrendered before the concerned Court after issuance of process. Learned counsel for the ED has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that during investigation, the plea of defence that the amount was received as part of the consideration amount has not been found to be true. Petitioner has criminal antecedent apart from the case registered as Madhpur P.S. Case No.351 of 2017, there is one more case. 17 SIM cards were also seized which were used in Cyber fraud and illegal proceeds that was generated which were invested in the house, for which, further investigation is still going on. Petitioner is on bail in the case for predicate offence, he was no arrested during investigation in the present case and has voluntarily surrendered before the ld Court below. Uunder the circumstance, the bail application is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below subject to the condition that one of the bailor(s) must be Income Tax Payee and that he shall not commit an offence, similar to the offence of which he is accused in the present case. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/ Uploaded. "