2024 (12) TMI 1031 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Illegal appointment of ineligible candidates in lieu of extraneous consideration - Applicability of section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court, in the authority in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT (LB) has held that ' The Court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence under the Act. The Court ought to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. The duty of the Court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. Further, the Court is required to record a finding as to the possibility of the accused committing a crime which is an offence under the Act after grant of bail.' Whether seizure of incriminating articles/documents from the petitioner s house and property, both movable and immovable, worth crores of rupees allegedly acquired by the petitioner discloses an unbroken money trail, i.e., generation of proceeds of crime which eventually leads to the petitioner shall be decided in trial. The allegations primarily rest on the statement of the co-accused recorded under section 50 of the Act, the truth and veracity of which need to be weighed during trial. The material collected by the E.D. prima facie suggests that the petitioner was allegedly in liason with Manik Bhattacharyya and Kuntal Ghosh who were actively involved in the offence. Both of them have been granted bail by this Court. The petitioner is similarly circumstanced - With regard to prolonged incarceration of the petitioner and delay in trial, the petitioner has submitted that he is in custody since 10th March, 2023, i.e., for about twenty months. The Hon ble Supreme Court has time and again held that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial and in such a case Article 21 applies irrespective of the seriousness of the crime. The right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional Court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-under trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional Court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. It is not in dispute that he is a first-time offender and has not been convicted of any offence earlier. Keeping in view the voluminous evidence to be considered by the learned Trial Court, chance of conclusion of trial within the time frame for incarceration during trial laid down in section 479 is bleak. Rejecting the prayer of the petitioner at this stage and granting him liberty to renew his prayer upon completion of the said time frame shall serve no purpose at all. Article 21 of the Constitution and section 479 of the 2023 Act read in harmony speak in favour of grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground of prolonged detention without trial as well as delay in trial. This Court is inclined to release the petitioner on bail subject to stringent conditions - Application for bail allowed.

Issues Involved:

1. Involvement of the petitioner in money laundering and illegal appointments.
2. Petitioner's entitlement to bail considering prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.
3. Applicability of section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and constitutional rights under Article 21.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Involvement in Money Laundering and Illegal Appointments:

The case involves allegations against the petitioner concerning illegal appointments in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET-2014) and money laundering. The Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) conducted searches and interrogations, leading to the petitioner's arrest. The investigation revealed that the petitioner allegedly received substantial sums for facilitating illegal appointments. The E.D. claims that documents and statements, including those from co-accused, indicate the petitioner's involvement in generating proceeds of crime. However, the petitioner argues that the wealth amassed does not equate to money laundering, and there is no direct evidence of a money trail implicating him. The petitioner was not named in the predicate offence, and the allegations primarily rely on statements from co-accused, which are not admissible as evidence.

2. Entitlement to Bail:

The petitioner has been in custody since March 2023, with the investigation still ongoing. The petitioner argues for bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and lack of direct evidence against him. The court considers the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that bail is a rule, and jail is an exception. The court notes that the petitioner is a first-time offender, and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon due to the extensive evidence and numerous accused involved. The court highlights the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, which mandates that prolonged pre-trial detention should not equate to punishment without trial.

3. Applicability of Section 45 and Constitutional Rights:

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act imposes stringent conditions for bail, requiring the court to believe that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. However, the court refers to the Supreme Court's interpretation, which allows for bail if the accused is not named in the predicate offence, as in this case. The court also considers the constitutional mandate under Article 21, which overrides restrictive statutory provisions when the accused's right to a speedy trial is compromised. The court concludes that the petitioner's prolonged detention without trial infringes on his constitutional rights, warranting bail.

Conclusion:

The court grants bail to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions, recognizing the prolonged detention and delay in trial. The decision balances the statutory requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act with the constitutional rights enshrined in Article 21, emphasizing that the right to liberty should not be curtailed without just cause. The court's observations are limited to the bail application and do not influence the trial proceedings.

← Previous