Petitioner granted bail in money laundering case with strict conditions

The court granted bail to the petitioner in a case involving allegations of money laundering, extortion, and fraud. The petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety of the same amount, restricted from leaving the country without permission, and required to inform the court of any change in residential address. The court considered the gravity of the offense, lack of evidence tampering, and the petitioner's previous custody time before granting bail.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for additional documents.
2. Regular bail application under PMLA.
3. Allegations and evidence against the petitioner.
4. Legal arguments for and against the bail application.
5. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA post-amendment.
6. Consideration of Section 24 of PMLA.
7. Prima facie material and conditions for granting bail.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Additional Documents:
The court took on record additional documents, including the respondent's application before the Trial Court under Section 44(1)(c) PMLA and the CBI's reply. The application was disposed of.

2. Regular Bail Application under PMLA:
The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with ECIR/03/HIU/2018 recorded by the Enforcement Directorate under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

3. Allegations and Evidence Against the Petitioner:
The ECIR was based on investigations revealing that the petitioner portrayed himself as a power broker and extorted money from various entities by claiming to have sensitive information from the Income Tax Department. Allegations included:
- Extorting Rs. 15,19,50,000 from M/s White Lion Real Estate Developers Private Limited.
- Transactions involving Rs. 79 crores and purchasing luxury items with ill-gotten money.
- Fraudulently obtaining an Aero-drum Entry Pass (AEP) by deceiving the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS).
- Operating multiple bank accounts with voluminous transactions worth over Rs. 100 crores.
- Using proceeds of crime to purchase properties and repay loans.
- Extorting a total of Rs. 29,58,09,570 from various companies.
- Laundering Rs. 5,19,80,000 through a Chartered Accountant.

4. Legal Arguments for and Against the Bail Application:
The respondent argued that the nature of the investigation under PMLA is distinct and the petitioner should not be granted bail despite bail being granted in predicate offences investigated by CBI. They highlighted the gravity of the offence and the potential for the petitioner to tamper with evidence. The petitioner countered that no sanction for prosecution was given in RC 0003, and the CBI had objected to clubbing its charge-sheet with the ECIR. The petitioner also argued that no complaints were received from other entities besides M/s White Lion Real Estate Developers Private Limited, and taxes were duly paid on all incomes.

5. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA Post-Amendment:
The court examined the amendment to Section 45 of PMLA, which introduced the words "under this Act." The Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India had declared the twin conditions for bail under Section 45(1) unconstitutional. The court noted that the amendment did not revive the original Section 45(1)(ii) and referenced similar views from the Bombay High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court.

6. Consideration of Section 24 of PMLA:
Section 24 of PMLA shifts the burden of proof to the accused in money-laundering cases. The court clarified that this presumption arises during the trial, and at the bail stage, the accused needs to rebut the presumption based on broad probabilities.

7. Prima Facie Material and Conditions for Granting Bail:
The court considered the prima facie material, gravity of the offence, severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the petitioner tampering with evidence. The CBI clarified that no pecuniary advantage was received in RC 0003, and the complaint in RC 0004 was limited to M/s White Lion Real Estate Developers Private Limited. The court found no material indicating tampering of evidence by the petitioner and noted that the petitioner had already been in custody for over a year.

Conclusion:
The court granted bail to the petitioner, directing him to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety of the same amount. The petitioner was restricted from leaving the country without prior permission and required to inform the court of any change in residential address. The petition was disposed of, and the order was made available immediately (Order dasti).

---