2017 (12) TMI 1795 - HC - Money Laundering

Supreme Court Grants Bail in Unconstitutional Bail Conditions Case

The petitioner was granted bail after the Supreme Court declared certain bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act unconstitutional. ... Grant of Bail - petitioner contended that she was entitled to bail being woman and sick, in view of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act, which envisaged release of the category of persons, as mentioned in the proviso, on bail without satisfying twin conditions as contained in Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the offence alleged against the petitioner, as per the second supplementary charge-sheet, is under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act, which attracts maximum sentence of 7 years. Complaint has already been filed against the petitioner and trial is likely to take time. Petitioner is in custody for more than 5 months. Petitioner is not an accused in the predicate offence. Petitioner’s father and brother are settled in India. It is not advisable to discuss and return any findings on the merits and/or demerits of the allegations and counter allegations of the parties at this stage, as it will affect the proceedings of the complaint on merits. Keeping in mind totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1 lac with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court. Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the trial court - Bail application allowed. Issues:Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.Interpretation of Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.Petitioner's involvement in the predicate offence and allegations of money laundering.Petitioner's health conditions and need for medical attention.Risk of petitioner evading the process of law if released on bail.Analysis:Issue 1: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.The petitioner filed a second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. The earlier bail application was based on Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act), which imposed conditions for release on bail. However, the Supreme Court declared these conditions unconstitutional, leading to a change in the bail application process for accused individuals.Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.The judgment dated 23rd November, 2007 by the Supreme Court declared Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act unconstitutional as it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. This decision eliminated the twin conditions for release on bail, allowing accused individuals to seek bail without satisfying the previous stringent requirements.Issue 3: Petitioner's involvement in the predicate offence and allegations of money laundering.The petitioner's involvement in the predicate offence related to a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding kickbacks exchanged in a contract with M/s Augusta Westland International Limited. The petitioner was alleged to have participated in transferring proceeds of crime through various companies, leading to money laundering investigations by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).Issue 4: Petitioner's health conditions and need for medical attention.The petitioner, aged about 53 years, was described as sick and requiring regular medical attention, including physiotherapy. It was argued that the petitioner's health condition warranted bail, especially considering the completion of investigations against her and the pending trial.Issue 5: Risk of petitioner evading the process of law if released on bail.The respondent opposed the bail application, highlighting the seriousness of the alleged offence and the substantial evidence collected during the investigation implicating the petitioner. Concerns were raised about the possibility of the petitioner evading the legal process, especially since she and her husband were based in Dubai, and her husband was evading arrest.In conclusion, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond and complying with certain conditions, including surrendering her passport and providing her contact details. The court's decision balanced the petitioner's health concerns with the seriousness of the allegations and the risk of evasion of the legal process.