Petitioner granted bail under PMLA with strict conditions

The court granted bail to the petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, subject to stringent conditions, considering completion of the investigation, petitioner's health, previous cooperation, and pending constitutional validity of Section 45 of PMLA. The decision was influenced by the petitioner's age, attachment of properties, and the need to prevent interference with the ongoing trial.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Regular bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
2. Allegations of fraud and money laundering.
3. Petitioner's non-cooperation with the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
4. Constitutional validity of Section 45 of PMLA.
5. Petitioner's health and previous compliance.
6. Comparison with similar cases.
7. Conditions for granting bail.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

1. Regular bail application under PMLA:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case registered under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The petitioner's bail was previously denied by the Special Court, PMLA, Jalandhar.

2. Allegations of fraud and money laundering:
The petitioner was accused of being the mastermind behind a fraud involving the generation of proceeds of crime through bank loans obtained via forged documents. These proceeds were allegedly diverted and parked in various movable and immovable properties. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) found that the petitioner operated multiple bogus entities and defaulted on loans amounting to Rs. 21.31 crore.

3. Petitioner's non-cooperation with the ED:
The ED alleged that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation and made efforts to thwart it. The petitioner was arrested on the grounds of non-cooperation and failure to appear before the ED despite being summoned multiple times.

4. Constitutional validity of Section 45 of PMLA:
Section 45 of PMLA imposes twin conditions for granting bail: (i) the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application, and (ii) the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offense while on bail. The Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah declared these conditions unconstitutional. However, an amendment in 2018 attempted to revive these conditions, and the constitutional validity of this amendment is pending before the Supreme Court, as different High Courts have divergent views.

5. Petitioner's health and previous compliance:
The petitioner argued that he had tested positive for COVID-19, which affected his ability to appear before the ED. He claimed to have cooperated with the investigation by appearing multiple times and had entered a compromise with the bank, paying Rs. 2.5 crore. The petitioner has been in custody since 26.07.2021 and contended that there was no justification for his continued detention.

6. Comparison with similar cases:
The petitioner’s counsel referred to a similar case (Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement) where bail was granted. The court noted that divergent views on the revival of Section 45's twin conditions exist and that the Supreme Court's decision on this matter is pending.

7. Conditions for granting bail:
The court considered that the investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet was filed. Given the petitioner's age (53 years) and the fact that his properties were already attached, the court decided to grant bail subject to specific conditions:
- Furnishing personal and surety bonds of Rs. 2 lakh.
- Submission of residential address and proof.
- Surrender of passport.
- Regular appearance before the Special Court.
- Not leaving the jurisdiction without court permission.
- No tampering with evidence or prosecution witnesses.

Conclusion:
The court granted bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions to ensure compliance and prevent any interference with the ongoing trial. The decision was influenced by the completion of the investigation, the petitioner's health, previous cooperation, and the pending constitutional validity of Section 45 of PMLA.

---