2023 (12) TMI 1318 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - predicate offence - condition u/s 45 of PMLA satisfied or not - the revenue officials misused their official position and wrongly allocated shamlat land amongst the residents of village Seonk - HELD THAT - In the present case, considering the custody of more than 03 months and the benefit which the petitioner took was just Rs. 50,000/-, it would be a perversity of justice if this Court continues further pre-trial incarceration. Thus, given the amount attributed to the petitioner viz-a-viz pre-trial custody and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability of further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions - In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 (1) TMI 1193 - SUPREME COURT , the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions. The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence - Petitioner to comply with their undertaking made in the bail petition, made before this court through counsel as reflected at the beginning of this order. If the petitioner fails to comply with any of such undertakings, then on this ground alone, the bail might be canceled, and the victim/complainant may file any such application for the cancellation of bail, and the State shall file the said application. Any Advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order in any language that the petitioner understands - If the petitioner finds bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application u/s 439 CrPC in a case under PMLA.
2. Compliance with twin conditions u/s 45 PMLA for granting bail.
3. Evaluation of evidence and allegations against the petitioner.
4. Conditions for bail to ensure non-interference with the investigation.

Summary:

1. Bail Application u/s 439 CrPC in a Case under PMLA:
The petitioner, in custody since 08.09.2023, sought bail u/s 439 CrPC. The petitioner's counsel suggested stringent conditions for bail, including asset declaration and limiting the petitioner to one mobile number.

2. Compliance with Twin Conditions u/s 45 PMLA for Granting Bail:
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the bail, citing the express bar of section 45 PMLA, which necessitates meeting twin conditions for bail. The court noted compliance with the first condition as the Public Prosecutor was given the opportunity to oppose the bail.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Allegations against the Petitioner:
The case stemmed from FIR No.13 dated 02.11.2020, involving offences under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. Allegations included misuse of official position by revenue officials, leading to irregular land allocations. The petitioner allegedly received Rs. 50,000/- for signing a fraudulent Power of Attorney. The court acknowledged the petitioner's custody of over three months and the relatively minor amount involved (Rs. 50,000/-) compared to the larger scam.

4. Conditions for Bail to Ensure Non-Interference with the Investigation:
The court emphasized the need for stringent conditions to prevent the petitioner from influencing the investigation or tampering with evidence. Conditions included furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- and one surety of Rs. 25,000/-, or alternatively, a fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000/- in favor of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner was also restricted to one prepaid mobile number until the trial's conclusion.

The court highlighted the balance between granting bail and ensuring a fair trial, referencing relevant Supreme Court judgments to support its decision. The petition was allowed with specified conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the judicial process.