Money laundering bail denied over excise policy conspiracy allegations involving kickbacks and deliberate loopholes

The Delhi HC dismissed a bail application in a money laundering case involving alleged conspiracy to frame an excise policy for illegal gains. The court held that Section 45 PMLA does not impose absolute restraint on bail, but courts must consider whether material would likely result in conviction based on broad probabilities. The case involved allegations that political figures conspired with liquor manufacturers to introduce a new excise policy benefiting certain individuals who provided advance kickbacks. The court found credible material showing deliberate policy loopholes to facilitate illegal activities and continuous generation of proceeds of crime through a 65% stake arrangement. Considering the gravity of allegations and available evidence, including statements under Section 50 PMLA, the bail application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged Conspiracy and Irregularities in Framing and Implementation of Excise Policy.
2. Role and Involvement of the Petitioner in the Conspiracy.
3. Admissibility and Credibility of Evidence under PMLA.
4. Application of Section 45 of PMLA and Conditions for Grant of Bail.

Summary:

1. Alleged Conspiracy and Irregularities in Framing and Implementation of Excise Policy:
The case involves an FIR registered by CBI against several individuals, including a high-ranking government official, for irregularities in the framing and implementation of the excise policy of GNCTD of Delhi for the year 2021-22. The FIR alleges that certain public servants recommended and took decisions pertaining to the excise policy without the approval of the competent authority, intending to extend undue favors to licensees post-tender. The CBI filed a chargesheet covering six accused persons, including the petitioner, alleging a conspiracy to get undue benefits by circumventing policy provisions. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated an investigation under PMLA, revealing that the excise policy was created to generate and channel illegal funds to certain political leaders.

2. Role and Involvement of the Petitioner in the Conspiracy:
The petitioner, Abhishek Boinpally, is alleged to be a key person involved in the conspiracy, representing the South Group and facilitating the payment of a Rs. 100 crore kickback to Vijay Nair. The ED's investigation revealed that the petitioner attended several meetings with co-conspirators and was involved in managing retail zones used to recoup the kickbacks. The petitioner admitted in his statements to running retail zones for Sarath Reddy and attending meetings with other accused persons. The ED's case is supported by statements under Section 50 of PMLA, hotel records, and financial transactions indicating the flow of money connected to the proceeds of crime.

3. Admissibility and Credibility of Evidence under PMLA:
The court acknowledged that statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA are admissible as evidence, though their evidentiary value is to be assessed during the trial. The court noted that the statements of co-accused and public servants, despite being challenged by the defense, cannot be disregarded at this stage. The court emphasized that the involvement of third parties in formulating and drafting the excise policy indicates mens rea and cannot be ignored.

4. Application of Section 45 of PMLA and Conditions for Grant of Bail:
Section 45 of PMLA imposes twin conditions for granting bail: the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application, and the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The court held that the petitioner failed to fulfill these conditions, given the seriousness and gravity of the allegations and the credible material on record. The court found that the petitioner's involvement in the conspiracy and money laundering was evident from the flow of money and his interactions with other accused persons.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the bail application, concluding that the petitioner played an active role in the conspiracy and money laundering, and there were no reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty of the offense. The court emphasized the need to balance personal liberty with the right of society at large, particularly in cases involving economic offenses with deep-rooted conspiracies.

---