2023 (4) TMI 410 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - twin conditions under Section 45 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, satisfied or not - HELD THAT - The bail application of the applicant has to be decided keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 45 (1) of the PMLA, including proviso appended thereto - the instant case has been lodged primarily with the allegation that the named co-accused Yadav Singh had committed corrupt practices while awarding certain engineering works, regarding which agreement bonds for Rs. 954.38 Crores were executed. The applicant happens to be the wife to Yadav Singh. She is a director of M/s Kusum Garments, in whose account Rs. 50,00,000/- were deposited. The amount deposited is claimed to have been given to M/s Kusum Garments by way of loan and it is the case of the Enforcement Directorate, that the amount has been transferred by layering so that it could not be detected and in fact it was a part of the proceeds of crime committed by the co-accused Yadav Singh. The applicant is a woman and one of her kidneys has been removed and she is surviving with one kidney and she is suffering from anxiety, depression and panic attacks. The Proviso appended to Section 45 (1) of PMLA provides that a woman or a sick or infirm person may be released on bail. The amount deposited in the account of M/s Kusum Garments is Rs.50,00,000/- and the Proviso also provides that a person who is accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees, may be granted bail - The principal co-accused Yadav Singh has already been granted bail. Sri Mohan Lal Rathi, who had deposited the amount in the account of Kusum Garments, and who has stated in his statement recorded by the Enforcement Directorate, that he had given this amount to Kusum Garments as loan, has not been made accused in the present case. Sri Mohan Lal Rathi had received the amount from co-accused Pradeep Garg and Pradeep Garg has also been granted bail. Other co-accused person Pankaj Jain and Vinod Kumar Goel have also been granted bail. It is only the applicant who is in jail in connection with the present case. Bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Second bail application for release of the applicant.
2. Allegations and evidence against the applicant.
3. Previous court orders and interim protections.
4. Health conditions of the applicant.
5. Legal arguments and opposition to the bail.
6. Applicable legal provisions and precedents.

Summary:

Issue 1: Second Bail Application
The applicant filed a second bail application in Complaint Case No. 13 of 2017 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002).

Issue 2: Allegations and Evidence
An FIR was lodged against Yadav Singh and others for corrupt practices. The Enforcement Directorate's complaint named the applicant, wife of Yadav Singh, as an accused. It was alleged that Rs. 50,00,000/- was transferred to M/s Kusum Garments, where the applicant is a director, as part of proceeds of crime.

Issue 3: Previous Court Orders and Interim Protections
The Supreme Court and High Court had provided interim protections to the applicant, allowing her to apply for bail and preventing arrest for specified periods. Despite these protections, her bail applications were rejected multiple times by lower courts.

Issue 4: Health Conditions of the Applicant
The applicant, an elderly woman, suffers from severe health issues including having only one kidney, anxiety, depression, and panic attacks. Her health condition was considered in previous court orders.

Issue 5: Legal Arguments and Opposition
The applicant's counsel argued for bail based on her health and the fact that all co-accused had been granted bail. The Enforcement Directorate opposed the bail, citing the applicant's involvement in money laundering and referencing Supreme Court judgments that emphasize the severity of economic offences.

Issue 6: Applicable Legal Provisions and Precedents
The court considered Section 45(1) of PMLA, which makes offences under the Act non-bailable, and the proviso allowing bail for women or sick persons. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation that bail should be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty.

Conclusion:
The court found the applicant's health condition and the fact that all co-accused had been granted bail sufficient grounds for granting bail. The bail application was allowed with conditions to ensure the applicant does not tamper with evidence, pressurize witnesses, or leave the country without permission.