Ranjit Mandal v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7652 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2016 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Patna ====================================================== Ranjit Mandal, Son of Sri Shivdani Mandal @ Sri Shivdani Rai, Resident of Village- 40, Bodh Nagar, Ramgarh Chowk, Police Station- Ramgarh Chowk, District- Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. U.K. Gautam, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002) Govt. of India, 1st Floor, Chandipura Place Bank Road, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna- 800001. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha Mr. Rabi Bhushan For the UoI :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 16-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Complaint Case no. 5 of 2016 registered for the offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act-2002. The petitioner is said to be the habitual offender and has acquired property worth Rs. 92,88,043/- in his own name and in the name of his wife, father and brother through the crime proceeds.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7652 of 2018(3) dt.16-03-2018 2/3 provision of Section 3 of Money Laundering Act is not applicable in the case under hand as the aforesaid property has not been acquired by the criminal act or by the criminal proceeds. He has given explanation and source of consideration used in acquiring the aforesaid property in his own name or in the name of his wife, father and brother. It is further submitted that the property standing in the name of his wife, father and brother have not been acquired by the petitioner rather by the aforesaid persons from the sale consideration which they have managed as detailed in his bail petition. It is further submitted that it is a matter of trial, where it will be considered as to whether the aforesaid properties have been acquired by the aforesaid persons by sale consideration acquired by the aforesaid persons from the aforesaid sources or by the petitioner through the crime procceds benami in the name of his wife, father and brother. The petitioner has been languishing in custody since 28.04.2017.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union of India opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner happens to be habitual offender and acquired the aforesaid property in his own name and also benami in the name of aforesaid persons through the crime proceeds and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7652 of 2018(3) dt.16-03-2018 3/3 during investigation, it is established that the aforesaid property has been acquired by the petitioner himself through the crime proceeds and petitioner has failed to establish the source of income for acquiring the aforesaid proceeds. Hence, he does not deserve bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Patna in connection with Complaint Case no. 5 of 2016.

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) rohit/- U T