Court Grants Bail in Money-Laundering Case

The Court granted bail to the petitioner in a case involving a complaint under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner, who had been in custody for over eleven months, sought bail citing completion of investigation, trial delays due to COVID-19, and property discovery below one crore rupees. Despite opposition from the Union of India based on the gravity of economic offences and the petitioner's criminal record, the Court considered the lack of convictions in most cases and the need to ensure trial attendance. Bail was granted with conditions to secure the petitioner's presence for trial, following legal principles on bail from relevant Supreme Court judgments.

---

---

Issues:
Grant of bail in connection with a complaint case under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 based on various grounds such as completion of investigation, lockdown due to COVID-19, property discovery, and legal principles for bail consideration.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought bail due to being in jail since 14.06.2019, completion of investigation, and the unlikelihood of trial conclusion during the COVID-19 lockdown. The petitioner emphasized cooperation with the trial and challenged the assumption that his property proceeds from criminal activities. The petitioner's property discovery was over 98 lakhs, falling under the bail provision of less than one crore rupees as per Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

The petitioner relied on legal principles from the Supreme Court's judgment in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement for bail considerations. The Union of India opposed bail, highlighting the gravity of economic offences under the Act, the petitioner's criminal background, and potential evidence tampering risks. The Union argued that the principles in P. Chidambaram's case did not apply due to the petitioner facing twenty-six criminal cases, unlike the mentioned case.

The Court considered the gravity of the offences, noting that out of the twenty-six cases, twenty resulted in acquittal, two were against unknown individuals, and two had police as informants. The Court emphasized that mere accusations without convictions do not establish a criminal background. With the petitioner in custody for over eleven months and trial delays due to COVID-19, bail was granted to ensure attendance at trial, following the proviso of Section 45 of the Act.

The Court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, emphasizing that bail is not a form of punishment but a means to secure the accused's trial presence. Considering the circumstances, the Court granted bail to the petitioner upon furnishing a bail bond and sureties, subject to conditions like cooperation with the trial, non-tampering with evidence, and not leaving the country without court permission. The Court's decision was based on the specific facts of the case and the need to secure the petitioner's presence for trial.

---