2024 (9) TMI 621 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of regular bail - allegation is that petitioner has been actively involved in layering of illegal proceeds of crime - evidence against the petitioner is the various hawala transactions which have been established and corroborated by the statements of various hawala operators/Angadias in their statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 - twin test as laid in Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 satisfied or not - HELD THAT - It may be observed in the context of Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 that the prosecution has filed one main Prosecution Complaint on 26.11.2022 and thereafter, five Supplementary Prosecution Complaints in none of which the petitioner had been cited as an accused. It is the 6th Supplementary Prosecution Complaint in which the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused. The petitioner has filed a flowchart in the bail Application wherein it has explained how the conspiracy started at the first level and trickled down to the seventh level where the petitioner has featured. At this stage, the only allegation is that the petitioner received Rs.45 Crores, which were part of the proceeds of the crime and had been placed, layered, and integrated by him in the expenditure incurred in the various events organized during the Goa Campaign for AAP Party. The statement of the Angadiyas and others persons, are required to be proved through cogent evidence during the trial that this particular Rs.45 Crores, which is being utilized by the petitioner, were in fact the part of the proceeds of crime and this fact was within the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner has sought to explain Rs.12 lakhs, which were recovered from his account by stating that he had been doing odd jobs and working and this Rs.12 lakhs were part of his earnings. Furthermore, it has been explained by him that he was a freelancer working for the political parties like BJP, TMC etc., in the past. Looking at his nature of work of a free lancer for various political parties which he has been doing in the past, merely because he spent certain amount the source of which is not certain, for the campaigning events in the election of Goa, it cannot be said that there is a strong case against the petitioner. The twin conditions as provided in Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 are primarily satisfied. Even if it is held that these conditions are not met by the petitioner, the jurisprudence for grant of bail is that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his constitutional right of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 especially when there is a prospect of long incarceration without the conclusion of the trial. In the present case, the petitioner is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing trial. Regardless, conditions can be imposed to ensure the petitioner s attendance to face the trial. The petitioner Chanpreet Singh Rayat is admitted to bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the petitioner's arrest under PMLA.
2. Petitioner's involvement in the alleged crime and the evidence against him.
3. Applicability of Section 45 PMLA conditions for bail.
4. Petitioner's argument on the credibility of witnesses and statements.
5. Petitioner's fundamental rights and liberty under Article 21.
6. Petitioner's likelihood of committing the offense if released on bail.
7. Comparison with co-accused who have been granted bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Petitioner's Arrest under PMLA:
The petitioner challenged his arrest, asserting it was contrary to the law laid down in *Santosh v. State of Maharashtra* and *Selvi v. State of Karnataka*. He argued that his arrest was based solely on statements recorded during investigations, with no credible witness or evidence. The petitioner also claimed that the investigating agency employed a selective method in arresting accused persons.

2. Petitioner's Involvement in the Alleged Crime and the Evidence Against Him:
The ED alleged that the petitioner was a key person who received Rs. 45 crore in cash for use in the Goa Election Campaign and was closely associated with co-accused. The investigation revealed that the petitioner distributed money to vendors and volunteers working for the AAP campaign. Statements from various witnesses and hawala operators indicated the petitioner's involvement in the transfer and use of the proceeds of crime.

3. Applicability of Section 45 PMLA Conditions for Bail:
The ED argued that the petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA to be entitled to bail. The court noted that the petitioner was not cited as an accused in the main prosecution complaint or the first five supplementary complaints, only in the sixth. The court observed that the allegations against the petitioner were weak, and the twin conditions were primarily satisfied.

4. Petitioner's Argument on the Credibility of Witnesses and Statements:
The petitioner contended that the statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA, mainly from co-accused and angadiyas, had the weakest evidentiary value. He argued that these statements should be considered only during trial and not at the stage of bail. The court acknowledged that the credibility of these statements would be tested during the trial.

5. Petitioner's Fundamental Rights and Liberty under Article 21:
The petitioner emphasized his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court observed that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty should not become punishment without trial. The court reiterated that "bail is the rule and refusal is an exception," considering the petitioner's right to liberty.

6. Petitioner's Likelihood of Committing the Offense if Released on Bail:
The court noted that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since 18.04.2024 and had cooperated with the investigation. Given the nature of his freelance work and the fact that he had deep roots in society, the court found no likelihood of the petitioner committing the same offense if released on bail.

7. Comparison with Co-Accused Who Have Been Granted Bail:
The court observed that other co-accused, such as Manish Sisodia, K. Kavitha, and Vijay Nair, had been granted bail in similar circumstances. The court found that the petitioner stood on a better footing than these co-accused and noted that the trial would take a long time due to the large volume of documents and witnesses involved.

Conclusion:
The petitioner was granted bail on the following conditions:
1. Furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with one surety.
2. Appearing before the court as required.
3. Providing a working mobile number to the Investigating Officer.
4. Not changing his residential address without informing the court.
5. Surrendering his passport.
6. Reporting to the Investigating Officer twice a week.
7. Not indulging in any criminal activity or contacting witnesses.
8. Not leaving the country without court permission.
9. Not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

The court emphasized that the observations in the judgment were without prejudice to the trial. The petition along with applications was disposed of, and a copy of the order was communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent and the trial court.

← Previous Next →