2023 (3) TMI 542 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail - disproportionate assets of the present applicant which he, allegedly, could not explain - Scheduled/predicate offence - HELD THAT - As a matter of fact, the present applicant is not in judicial custody since November, 2019. He remained in judicial custody w.e.f. 27.02.2017 in another matter of E.D. and w.e.f. 04.11.2017 in the present case of E.D. The maximum punishment prescribed under the offence of PMLA is seven years. At the time of hearing before the Apex Court seeking bail, the arguments relating to the twin conditions as prescribed under Section 45 of the PMLA must have been placed and the Apex Court has granted interim bail to the applicant. If the proceedings of predicate offence have been stayed, as shown by the learned counsel for the applicant, however, the proceedings under PMLA may go on but the final outcome of the proceedings relating to the offence of PMLA shall dependent upon the final outcome of the proceedings of predicate offence. Notably, proper opportunity has been given to the learned counsel for the E.D. and he has filed a detailed counter affidavit. Not only the above, neither learned counsel for the Union of India nor counsel for the E.D. has shown any order to show that the stay order staying the proceedings of the predicate offence has been vacated, rather those proceedings of the predicate offence have been stayed since 07.12.2018 i.e. more than four years and three months, so considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in its entirety, more particularly the fact that the present applicant is on interim bail since 15.11.2019 in this case granted by the Apex Court and there is no adverse report of misusing the liberty or flouting any condition of bail by the present applicant, besides, there was neither a flight risk, nor would he tamper with the evidence nor is influencing the trial proceedings, it is clear that the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA are satisfied in the present case. It is not found proper to send the applicant to the judicial custody again - bail application allowed subject to conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interim protection and bail proceedings.
2. Predicate offence and its impact on PMLA proceedings.
3. Allegations and evidence against the applicant.
4. Conditions for granting bail.

Summary:

1. Interim Protection and Bail Proceedings:
The applicant's counsel referenced an order dated 12.01.2023 by the Apex Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).10071/2019, extending interim protection granted on 15.11.2019 and requesting the High Court to dispose of Bail No.4044 of 2018 within eight weeks. The Apex Court had granted interim bail to the applicant, and this protection was still in effect.

2. Predicate Offence and Its Impact on PMLA Proceedings:
The applicant sought bail in Complaint Case No.4 of 2018 under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, based on a CBI case involving disproportionate assets. The applicant was previously granted bail by the Apex Court in related CBI cases. The proceedings of the predicate offence (RC-3(A)/2015, CBI/STF, Delhi) were stayed by the Apex Court on 07.12.2018, impacting the PMLA proceedings. The Apex Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others Vs. Union of India and Others was cited, emphasizing that the outcome of the predicate offence affects PMLA proceedings.

3. Allegations and Evidence Against the Applicant:
The prosecution alleged that the applicant allotted high-value plots to himself and associates, created shell companies, and acquired benami properties. During income tax raids, significant assets were found, including Rs.19.60 Crore, out of which Rs.11.90 Crore was unaccounted for. The applicant was also linked to the PGP Trust, which allegedly received donations in exchange for cash repayments. The Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) argued that the applicant managed the Trust's affairs indirectly and was involved in money laundering activities.

4. Conditions for Granting Bail:
The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant had cooperated with investigations and had not misused interim bail granted by the Apex Court. The applicant was not a flight risk, and there was no adverse report against him. The court considered the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA and the Apex Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, emphasizing the need for quicker adjudication in cases with rigorous conditions. The court found it appropriate to grant bail, considering Article 21 of the Constitution and the applicant's compliance with interim bail conditions.

Order:
The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail under specified conditions, including surrendering his passport, not leaving India without court permission, and attending trial proceedings. The trial court was instructed to conduct and conclude the trial without being influenced by the observations made in this bail order.