2023 (8) TMI 1464 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Seeking grant of bail - illegal delivery of various items inside the premises of Tihar Jail - bail application has been opposed by the ED predominantly on the ground that the petitioner had been working for main accused Sukesh Chandrashekhar and her co-accused wife Leena Maria Paul - HELD THAT - It is a settled proposition that at the stage of bail the court is only required to see the prima facie case and is not allowed to meticulously examine or appreciate the evidence or test the probative value of the witnesses. The court is required to maintain a delicate balance between the judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail before the commencement of the crime. Even in VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT it has been inter alia that the court at the stage of considering the application for grant of bail is expected to consider the question from the angle as to whether the accused was possessed of the requisite mens rea. The Court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence under the Act. Thus the court at this stage can grant the bail on the principle of broad probabilities. The court at this stage is required to examine the material in a broad manner and evaluate whether it can reasonably be said that the guilt of the accused can be proved. The court is only required to reach on a prima facie view based on a reasonable and prudent view without meticulous examination of the material collected during the investigation. In the present case the accused petitioner was a young girl of around 25-26 years of age. It is an admitted case that she was employed by Leena Maria Paul as Salon Sales Manager in Nail Artistry Salon. The possibility of a young girl with an immature mind falling to the tricks of alleged accused Sukesh Chandrashekhar cannot be ruled out at this stage - Persons of such tender age sometimes in the anxiety of getting easy money may deviate. The facts of each case are peculiar in nature. The present case involves act of a young girl who joined private service and finally ended up to allegedly committing serious offence. The allegation of the petitioner in the present case requires to be tested on evidence and in particular mens rea . There is also no material on record to suggest that the petitioner will commit offence of similar nature if released on bail. Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances and in particular of the fact that the petitioner is a young girl of 25-26 years is entitled to be admitted to bail. Accordingly the petitioner is admitted to bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50, 000/-with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court subject to the fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail u/s 45 of PMLA r/w Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. Allegations against the petitioner.
3. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner.
4. Submissions on behalf of ED.
5. Findings and analysis by the court.

Summary:

Issue 1: Grant of bail u/s 45 of PMLA r/w Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) r/w Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code 1973, in FIR No. ECIR/DLZO-II/54 of 2021, challenging the order dated 28.10.2022, which denied her bail.

Issue 2: Allegations against the petitioner

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in assisting Sukesh Chandrashekhar, the main accused, while he was in Tihar Jail. She allegedly facilitated the delivery of messages, luxurious items, and mobile phones to him, and managed proceeds of crime through various transactions. The ED claimed that the petitioner was actively involved in money laundering, receiving and utilizing proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 94,80,500/- for various purposes including payments to lawyers and jail staff.

Issue 3: Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

The petitioner's counsel argued that the case against her was false and she was being unfairly detained. The petitioner, a 28-year-old woman, had been in jail since 07.07.2022, while other accused had been granted bail. It was contended that there was no substantive material on record to suggest she would flee or tamper with evidence. The counsel emphasized that bail is a rule and refusal an exception, relying on precedents like P. Chidambaram v. Directorate Enforcement and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI.

Issue 4: Submissions on behalf of ED

ED's counsel argued that the petitioner was deeply involved in money laundering activities, assisting Sukesh Chandrashekhar by managing proceeds of crime and facilitating transactions. The counsel highlighted the risk of the petitioner alerting other accused if released on bail, and emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and her active role in the criminal activities.

Issue 5: Findings and analysis by the court

The court noted that at the bail stage, it only needs to see the prima facie case without meticulously examining the evidence. The court highlighted that the petitioner, a young girl, might have been influenced by Sukesh Chandrashekhar. There was no evidence that she used the proceeds of crime for her benefit. The court considered her age, the possibility of her being misled, and the lack of evidence suggesting she would commit similar offences if released. Consequently, the court granted bail to the petitioner on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety, subject to several conditions including surrendering her passport and not contacting co-accused or witnesses.

Conclusion: The court granted bail to the petitioner, considering her young age and the circumstances, while imposing strict conditions to ensure her compliance with the judicial process.