2024 (12) TMI 1541 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - illegally obtaining the tender after bribing the concerned officials - twin conditions of section 45 of PMLA - HELD THAT - The IRCON has categorically mentioned that to procure the tender under the Jal Jeevan Mission the petitioner must have a valid certificate issued by the IRCON. In Mukesh Pathak s statement under Section 50 of the PMLA it has been categorically mentioned that he forged the certificates and received money from the petitioner and other co-accused. The record also shows that the petitioner has received Rs.136.14 Crores from the State Government on the pretext of having valid certificates. The law itself is no longer res-integra and for granting bail under Section 45 of the PMLA twin conditions enshrined under Section 45 of the PMLA are to be satisfied. This Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not involved in such an offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the case of Daulat Singh @ Gatu Versus State of Rajasthan 2014 (4) TMI 1333 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT the Division Bench of this Court after interpreting the provisions enshrined under Section 37 of the NDPS Act categorically held that provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are mandatory. The Apex Court may grant release of bail under Article 142 of the Constitution without getting itself satisfied with the requirement of Section 37 of the Act if that is necessary for doing complete justice; such Authority is not available to the High Court or trial court. The accused s bail cannot be granted until the Court prima facie held that no material indicates the accused s involvement in the alleged crime. The bail order passed in the case of Manish Sisodia 2024 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT pertains to the power of the Hon ble Apex Court enumerated under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The same power cannot be exercised by the High Court as the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA are mandatory as held in the case of Madan Lal Choudhary Vs. Union of India 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT (LB) . Conclusion - i) There was enough material against the petitioner to substantiate the allegations and he did not meet the conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. ii) Petitioner was not entitled to release on bail based on the evidence and legal interpretations provided. Petition dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED:

- Whether the accused-petitioner should be granted bail under Section 483 B.N.S.S. in connection with offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

- Whether the petitioner's involvement in obtaining a tender through illegal means and money laundering has been established.

- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail based on his age and health conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS:

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court considered the provisions of the PMLA, specifically Section 45, along with precedents such as the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Daulat Singh @ Gatu Versus State of Rajasthan.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that there was sufficient material against the petitioner to substantiate the allegations of obtaining the tender illegally and engaging in money laundering. The court also emphasized the mandatory nature of the bail provisions under the PMLA and the stringent conditions for granting bail under Section 45.

Key evidence and findings: Evidence included statements by witnesses implicating the petitioner in forging certificates, obtaining the tender through bribery, and receiving a substantial amount of money in his account. The court highlighted the importance of valid certificates from IRCON for procuring the tender.

Application of law to facts: The court applied the provisions of the PMLA and relevant precedents to assess the petitioner's eligibility for bail. It emphasized the need to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 for granting bail in such cases.

Treatment of competing arguments: The court considered arguments from both the petitioner's counsel and the ASG opposing the bail application. While the petitioner argued innocence and entitlement to bail based on age and health, the ASG presented evidence of conspiracy and money laundering activities.

Conclusions: The court concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences, and he did not meet the conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. The bail application was dismissed based on the evidence and legal framework presented.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS:

- The court held that there was enough material against the petitioner to substantiate the allegations, and he did not meet the conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.

- The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the bail provisions under the PMLA and the need to satisfy the twin conditions for granting bail in such cases.

- The petitioner's bail application was dismissed, and he was not entitled to release on bail based on the evidence and legal interpretations provided.