The Supreme Court granted Anticipatory bail to the Senior Manager and Manager of Bank of India accused of a scam of over 11crores during the demonetisation period.
The bench comprising of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant states that there is no indication of the applicant not cooperating with the investigation. We direct that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on the bail on conditions imposed as per the trial court.”
Narender Kumar AOR appeared on behalf of the accused persons and submitted that the accused statement has been recorded and he has been cooperating with the investigation.
J Kant asked ASG, “why should he be sent to judicial custody now? When the investigation is over.”
On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju submitted that “this is a case of a scam of over 11crores. Both these persons are bank officers one senior manager and the other one manager. At the time of demonetisation, they deposited the money in the account of customers without the knowledge of the customers and they forged the cheques, forged the RTGS papers and send the money which was deposited to another person. This is the entire scam of cheating the demonetized currency deposited in the account and making it claim by sending it to others. The bank officers are doing this, who are the public servant this is a serious thing.”
Justice Kant– but unfortunately you did not stop them during the investigation, what stopped you?
Raju- let us say he is not arrested but still rigorous of 45 will apply this is PMLA case. If he is not arrested, it is not a ground for enlarging the person on bail.
Justice Kant- .. if you do not invoke the power of arrest under Section 19 during the course of investigation then certainly you cannot plea the rigorousness
ASG- yes Punjab and Haryana
Justice Kant- yes that’s my order. you could have arrested him
ASG- 45 of PMLA applies on both the stages
The FIR has been registered at Civil Lines, P. S. Gaya under the Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act subsequently a complaint has been filed by the Assistant Director PMLA to the Court of Special Judge, PMLA against the applicants and other bank officials. It was submitted that the accused persons have mis-utilized the accounts of complainants in connivance with the bank officer by depositing huge amount of cash transferring to different other accounts without their knowledge and consent of the account holders. It was disclosed that the total cash deposited in the 17 accounts and 05 accounts was under the control of the complainants.
The ASG before the Patna High Court submitted that the statement under Section 50 of the PMLA of the petitioner disclosed that the petitioner is knowingly in collusion with several others transferred the amount and thus he has committed an offence of Money Laundering Act as defined in Section 30 of PMLA Act, he further admits his mistake in effecting the ‘RTGS’ of Rs.10,00,000/- from the bank account of M/s Shiva Agro Enterprises to M/s Namokar Traders, Sangli.
In the course of the investigation, it is established that most of the transactions against which F.I.Rs. have been lodged, were either entered or verified using the login Id of the petitioner, which can be verified from the system generated report of the Bank of India.
The Patna High Court while rejecting the Anticipatory bail observed that Section 45 of the PMLA, provides that an accused can be granted anticipatory bail only if the Court is of the view that the accused has not committed any offence under the Act, whereas in the instant case there are sufficient materials as has been stated in the complaint petition which goes to prove the guilt of the petitioner. The Patna High Court had asked the petitioner to go for regular bail.