The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Bhupinder Singh @ Honey v. Enforcement of Directorate observed and allowed the petition filled by Punjab Chief Minister Charanjit Singh Channi’s nephew Bhupinder Singh in connection with an alleged illegal sand mining case under Sections 3 and Section 4 Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
An arrest was made by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) of Bhupinder Singh, in an alleged illegal sand mining case in February 2022 after a day-long questioning. It has alleged that one Kudratdeep Singh used to do sand mining illegally, and Bhupinder Singh used to manage the daily affairs of the said sand mine and used to receive all the payments through cash.
Further, it has been alleged that all the money that was being collected from the said sand mine was illegal as more mining was done than the prescribed limit and in order to circumvent the prescribed limit, forged weight slips were made. In the present case, this matter essentially stems from a 2018 FIR Lodged in 2018 at Rahon in which the name of Honey’s business partner Kudratdeep was mentioned, however, it was observed that his name was subsequently removed and did not appear in the police challan copy.
It was contended by the accused, while moving to the court: The complaint filed by the Enforcement of Directorate and that the registration of ECIR is illegal and the abuse of the process of law as there is no predicate offence in which the petitioner and Kudratdeep Singh are accused Without there being any predicate offence, proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 cannot continue gr being illegal and against the Act itself.
Earlier, the Special Court denied the bail plea, Jalandhar while noting that a huge amount of 9,97,52,700/- was involved in the case and however, he shouldn’t be granted bail. In connection with this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted him bail. Senior Advocate, Bipan Ghai along with Advocates Paras Talwar, Advocate Tushan Rawal and Advocate Deepanshu Mehta, appeared for the petitioner. It was held by the court that the petitioner qualifies for the triple test under Section 45 of the Act and, therefore, he was entitled to be released on bail.
