Court grants regular bail in drug trafficking case despite hawala allegations

The court granted the petitioner regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving allegations of drug trafficking, money laundering, and hawala transactions under the NDPS Act. Despite being implicated in hawala transactions related to drug money, the court considered the absence of recovery from the petitioner and the lack of direct evidence linking them to drug-related money laundering. Emphasizing the debatable nature of the case and the absence of recovery, the court made the interim bail absolute, allowing the petitioner's release on regular bail upon fulfilling necessary conditions.

---

---

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving FIR under Sections 21, 25, 27A, and 29 of NDPS Act, related to allegations of drug trafficking, money laundering, and hawala transactions.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought regular bail based on being nominated in the case involving the recovery of 188 kg of heroin and chemicals from a house rented by the main accused. The petitioner was implicated due to receiving drug money through hawala transactions, as per the disclosure statement of the main accused. The allegations pointed towards the petitioner's involvement in hawala transactions under the guise of a money-changing business, emphasizing the complicity under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act, a scheduled offense under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act).

The defense argued that the PMLA Act's provisions have overriding effect over other acts due to the nature of the allegations, contending that the petitioner's complicity falls under the PMLA Act, even though the case was not registered under it. Reference was made to the interpretation of Section 45 of the PMLA Act in comparison to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, highlighting the constitutional invalidity of imposing additional bail conditions. The defense stressed that no recovery was made from the petitioner, and the allegations were limited to hawala transactions without indicating knowledge of drug-related money laundering.

The State counsel maintained that the petitioner was nominated based on the main accused's disclosure statement, with no recovery from the petitioner. While the charges were not framed, the interim bail granted to the petitioner was not misused. A co-accused was granted regular bail, emphasizing the lack of recovery from the petitioner compared to the co-accused. The court found the case debatable and made the interim bail absolute, directing the petitioner's release on regular bail upon furnishing appropriate bonds, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits.

---