Applicants granted bail with conditions in Money Laundering Act case. Stay request denied.

The court granted regular bail to the applicants in connection with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act case. The applicants were ordered to be released on bail with specific conditions, such as depositing a certain amount before the designated Special Court, marking presence before the Enforcement Directorate, and obtaining permission before leaving the State of Gujarat. Additionally, the court rejected the request for a stay on the order to allow the respondent to appeal to the Supreme Court.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Allegations of money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Validity and admissibility of statements recorded under coercion.
4. Applicability of Section 45 of the PML Act to the applicants.
5. Cognizability of offences under the PML Act.
6. Parity in bail decisions with co-accused.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Regular Bail under Section 439 of CrPC and Section 45 of PML Act:
The applicants sought regular bail in connection with ECIR No. ECIR/03/AMZ0/2015 and PMLA Complaint No.8/2015. The court considered whether the applicants met the conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PML Act, which includes the public prosecutor's opportunity to oppose and the court's satisfaction that the applicants are not guilty and are unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

2. Allegations of Money Laundering:
The Enforcement Directorate alleged that the applicants were involved in money laundering activities related to cricket betting, with transactions amounting to Rs. 116,80,87,500/-. The applicants were accused of criminal breach of trust and cheating to obtain sim-cards from mobile companies using forged documents, and of receiving and placing bets amounting to Rs. 24,969,99,08,750/- through their firm M/s. Maruti, Ahmedabad.

3. Validity and Admissibility of Statements Recorded Under Coercion:
The applicants argued that their statements were recorded under duress and coercion by the officers of respondent No.2, and thus, should not be relied upon. They contended that the statements of the co-accused could not be the sole basis for conviction without corroborative evidence. The court noted that the issue of whether the confessional statements made before the Enforcement Directorate could be relied upon for conviction required consideration at the time of evidence appreciation.

4. Applicability of Section 45 of PML Act to the Applicants:
The court examined whether the limitations under Section 45 of the PML Act applied to the applicants. It was noted that the scheduled offences in this case were certain sections of the Indian Penal Code, which were moved from Part B to Part A of the schedule in 2013. The court referred to the judgment in Gorav Kathuria vs. Union of India, which held that the twin limitations in Section 45(1) did not apply to offences that were earlier listed in Part B of the schedule.

5. Cognizability of Offences under PML Act:
The court discussed whether offences under the PML Act were cognizable or non-cognizable. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Rakesh Manekchand Kothari (supra) held that the offences under the PML Act were non-cognizable, requiring compliance with procedures under Chapter XII of CrPC. This view was upheld by the Supreme Court, making it binding.

6. Parity in Bail Decisions with Co-Accused:
The court considered the principle of parity, noting that eight co-accused had been released on bail, including partners of the applicants in M/s. Maruti, Ahmedabad. The court observed that the applicants had been in custody for about one year and six months, and the trial had not yet commenced. The court found that the applicants' presence could be secured at the time of trial by imposing appropriate conditions.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the bail applications, ordering the applicants to be released on regular bail with specific conditions, including depositing Rs. 25,00,000/- each before the designated Special Court, marking presence before the Enforcement Directorate, and not leaving the State of Gujarat without prior permission. The court also rejected the prayer for staying the order for four weeks to enable the respondent to approach the Supreme Court.

---