2025 (3) TMI 272 - SCH - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - involvement in a crime of defalcation of huge sum in the matter of managing the award of tenders to PHED - twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA - HELD THAT - In the case of Manish Sisodia 2024 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT the Court has not exercised the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Court has held that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA cannot override the constitutional safeguards as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court has held that a prolonged incarceration cannot be permitted to be converted pre-trial detention into a sentence without trial. Like in the case of Manish Sisodia 2024 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT in the present case also thousands of documents are required to be considered at the stage of trial so also around 50 witnesses are required to be examined. The main evidence in the present case is documentary in nature which is already seized by the prosecution agency. As such there is no possibility of the same being tampered with. It is further to be noted that the Minister for whose benefit the alleged transactions have taken place has also not been implecated as an accused in the present case. The petitioner has already been released on bail in the predicate offences. SLP disposed off.

Summary

The Court considered a petition seeking bail where the petitioner was accused of defalcation of a significant sum in managing tenders. The key issues considered were whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the allegations and the application of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) which sets conditions for granting bail in such matters.The Court heard arguments from both parties. The petitioner's counsel argued that other co-accused with similar roles had been granted bail, while the respondent contended that the petitioner's involvement in defalcation was more serious. The respondent highlighted the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA for granting bail in such cases.Upon reviewing the case material, the Court noted that the petitioner's son and another accused had been granted bail by different benches of the Court. The Court referenced a previous case, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, where bail was granted based on constitutional safeguards under Article 21 rather than Section 45 of the PMLA. The Court emphasized that pre-trial detention should not be prolonged, and the main evidence in the case was documentary and already seized by the prosecution, reducing the risk of tampering.Additionally, the Court observed that the Minister allegedly benefiting from the transactions was not implicated in the case, and the petitioner had already been granted bail in related offenses. Considering these factors, the Court decided to grant bail to the petitioner in connection with the specific complaint case mentioned in the judgment.In conclusion, the Court granted bail to the petitioner based on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the evidence, and the absence of certain key factors. The judgment highlighted the importance of constitutional safeguards and the need to balance the interests of justice with the rights of the accused.