2024 (9) TMI 937 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - allegation on petitioner is that he had projected and concealed the property which was a proceed of crime in relation to a Scheduled Offence and was a beneficiary thereof - principles of parity - twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 not satisfied - HELD THAT - In the present case, it is evident that the proceeds of crime have been generated by one set of accused persons against whom the CBI case has been registered. However, the petitioner herein was roped in subsequently for laundering the proceeds of crime which had been generated by the accused persons in the predicate offence. Merely because those persons against whom the predicate offence has been registered, are also an accused under PMLA case would not in any way dilute or impact the involvement of the present petitioner whose role essentially has been determined to be in laundering the proceeds of crime. The argument, therefore, as projected by the petitioner, is not tenable. There are 14 main accused persons who were Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly or beneficiaries, but none of them has been arrested, except the petitioner which shows the role assigned to him is only of acquiring the land parcel worth Rs. 10.83 lakhs and the subsequent transfer of the company to Rabri Devi and Tejaswi Yadav in 2014 for a meagre amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The petitioner s role is miniscule essentially to the extent of Rs. 10.83 lakhs. While in this regard, it is pertinent to observe that while considering the grant of Bail, the parity is not so much essential considering as the role of the petitioner in the commission of offence. It is not disputed that out of 17 accused in PMLA, none of the accused even though they are the main perpetrators/beneficiaries of the offence under PMLA, have not been arrested and the prosecution Complaint had been filed against them without their arrest. Iit becomes significant and pertinent to examine the role of the petitioner in the present case. The allegations against him are that he had acquired a land valuing 10.83 lacs, which was the tainted money on the premise that the proceeds of sale are less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the respondent that as per the prosecution, essentially the allegations made against the petitioner are that he had purchased the land parcel worth Rs. 10.83 lakhs which he transferred subsequently to the other main accused persons but actually the value of the land parcel was much more than its purchase value. Also, the Companies of the petitioner had been used for laundering the proceeds of crime - At no place has the respondent quantified the value of proceeds of crime to be more than that. Even if it is accepted as has been contended by the respondent, that the value of the land parcel was 3-4 times more than the value reflected but then too, it would be less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The case of the petitioner is covered by the proviso thereby exempting him from satisfying the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 for grant of bail. It may be observed that he is not a flight risk, as he has all throughout been joining the investigations and at no point of time tried to evade the summons or to join the investigations. There has been no endeavour him to tamper with the evidence which is essentially documentary in nature or to influence the witnesses. The Triple Test for grant of bail is, therefore, satisfied by him. The applicant is directed to be released forthwith on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the petitioner's arrest and remand.
2. Petitioner's involvement in money laundering under PMLA, 2002.
3. Applicability of the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 for granting bail.
4. Petitioner's medical condition and its relevance to bail.
5. Parity in treatment with other accused persons.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Petitioner's Arrest and Remand:
The petitioner argued that his arrest was illegal as he was detained at the airport without being provided the grounds for arrest. The respondent countered that the arrest was in accordance with Section 19 of PMLA, 2002, and the grounds for arrest were supplied to the petitioner, which he acknowledged in writing. The court noted that the legality of arrest cannot be questioned after a competent court has passed an order of remand, as established in previous cases like *Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Rahul Modi*. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument regarding the illegality of the arrest and remand.

2. Petitioner's Involvement in Money Laundering:
The petitioner was accused of laundering proceeds of crime generated by other accused persons, including Lalu Prasad Yadav and his family members. The court observed that the petitioner, through his companies, was involved in acquiring and transferring properties that were proceeds of crime. Despite being cited as a witness in the predicate offence, the court clarified that the petitioner could still be an accused under PMLA, 2002, as the offences are independent. This position was supported by precedents like *Pavana Dibbur vs. Directorate of Enforcement* and *Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary vs. Union of India*.

3. Applicability of Twin Conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002:
The petitioner argued that the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002, were not applicable as the amount involved was less than Rs. 1 crore. The court noted that the allegations against the petitioner primarily involved a land parcel worth Rs. 10.83 lakhs, which, even if its value was understated, would still be less than Rs. 1 crore. Thus, the petitioner's case fell under the proviso to Section 45, exempting him from satisfying the twin conditions for bail. The court also considered the petitioner's chronic physical ailments, which further supported his eligibility for bail without satisfying the twin conditions.

4. Petitioner's Medical Condition and Relevance to Bail:
The petitioner had previously been granted interim bail on medical grounds, which was extended due to his health issues. The court acknowledged the petitioner's chronic ailments, including morbid obesity and heart issues, and noted that he could be considered 'sick and infirm,' entitling him to bail under the proviso to Section 45 of PMLA, 2002. This consideration was in line with the Supreme Court's stance in cases like *Prem Prakash vs. Union of India through ED* and *Vijay Nair vs. Directorate of Enforcement*.

5. Parity in Treatment with Other Accused Persons:
The petitioner argued that he was the only one arrested among the 17 accused, despite his role being minor compared to others. The court observed that none of the main accused, who were the primary beneficiaries, had been arrested, reflecting a pick-and-choose policy by the respondent. The court found this disparity in treatment significant and noted that the petitioner had consistently cooperated with the investigation. The court concluded that the principle of parity, along with the petitioner's cooperation and lack of flight risk, justified granting bail.

Conclusion:
The court directed the petitioner to be released on bail, subject to conditions like furnishing a personal bond, reporting to the investigating officer, and not leaving the country without permission. The court emphasized that the observations made were without prejudice to the trial.