ANAS AHMED Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on bail in Sp.C.C.No.782/2022 (ECIR No.ECIR/BGZO/47/2021) on the file of the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PML Act').

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Cyber Crime Police in Bengaluru registered an FIR in crime No.8/2021 dtd. 15/6/2021 against 13 accused for having committed the offence under Sec. 420 of IPC and Sec. 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2008. The offence under Sec. 420 of IPC is a scheduled offence under the provisions of prevention of Money Laundering Act and as such the respondent- Directorate of Enforcement has taken up the investigation of the matter. Later, on investigation the respondent is of the opinion that there exists a prima- facie case pertaining to money laundering under Sec. 3 of the PML Act punishable under Sec. 4 and as such recorded Enforcement Case Information Report in ECIR No.BGZO/47/2021 on 15/6/2021 and investigation was undertaken. It is further alleged that the present petitioner is accused No.3 and he is a partner of the companies M/s. Clifford Ventures and M/s. H and S Ventures Inc. It is also alleged that the said companies were also arraigned as accused registered in FIR No.8/2021 by the Cyber Crime Police. It is the specific allegation that the petitioner herein through the above said entities collected money from the public through investment apps by offering high and lucrative returns under exchange for the money deposited by them and in this regard more than 300 crores was collected from various depositors and more than 290 crores was diverted to various shell companies. It is also alleged that the petitioner has also cheated by diverting from original category of business in which he had registered and routed his transaction to collect the payments from a different apps named "Power bank" a Chinese based app and diverted the funds. It is also asserted that the petitioner has not co-operated during the course of investigation and hence, the case came to be registered.

(3.) The petitioner has approached the learned Spl. Court/ Prl. City Civil and Sessions judge, Bengaluru and the bail petition filed by him came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.