Court denies bail due to serious economic crimes and applicant's key role in fraud.

The court dismissed the third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. due to the gravity of the alleged offences, the applicant's key role in fraudulent export operations, and the likelihood of committing similar offences if released on bail. The court emphasized the severity of economic crimes and the need for a stringent approach. Pending applications were disposed of, and the judgment was directed to be promptly uploaded on the website.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. Allegations of predicate offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA post the 2018 amendment.
4. Allegations of inhuman treatment and procedural lapses by ED officials.
5. Examination of the applicant's involvement and the gravity of the alleged offences.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.:
The applicant filed a third bail application seeking regular bail in proceedings emanating from ECIR NO. DLZO-1/09/2019. The applicant had been in judicial custody since his arrest on 25th September 2021, and his previous bail applications were dismissed. The court considered the larger interest of the state, the flight risk of the accused, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the gravity of the alleged offence.

2. Allegations of predicate offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The applicant, a director in M/s Durga Apparels Pvt Ltd, was accused of fraudulent export of goods to claim undue DEPB/Duty Drawback scheme, causing a loss of Rs. 32.25 Crores to the exchequer. The DRI alleged that the applicant was involved in submitting low-value invoices and arranging full export proceeds through foreign buyers, leading to excess duty drawbacks. The applicant was alleged to manage various enterprises facilitating this fraud.

3. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA post the 2018 amendment:
The court examined the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, which were declared ultra vires in the landmark judgment of Nikesh Tarachand Shah. However, the 2018 amendment to Section 45 reintroduced these conditions. The court noted that the constitutional validity of this amendment is under active consideration by the Supreme Court. The court referred to various judgments, including Rohit Tandon and Dr. V.C. Mohan, to outline the parameters for adjudicating bail applications under Section 45.

4. Allegations of inhuman treatment and procedural lapses by ED officials:
The applicant alleged that during his appearance on 7th April 2021, he was pressurized to bribe ED officials and was severely tortured when he resisted, resulting in grave physical injury. The applicant filed a complaint and an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR, which was still pending. The applicant argued that his arrest was a counterblast to his complaint against ED officials.

5. Examination of the applicant's involvement and the gravity of the alleged offences:
The court noted that the applicant was the key person in the fraudulent export operations, involving inflated invoices and conversion of proceeds of crime into cash through entry operators. The applicant's involvement in managing various enterprises and reintroducing funds into banking channels was substantiated by documentary evidence and statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA. The court emphasized the severity and magnitude of economic offences and the need for a different approach in such cases.

Conclusion:
The court found no reasonable ground for believing that the applicant was not guilty of the alleged offence. Given the gravity of the offence and the material placed on record, the court concluded that the applicant was likely to commit such offences while on bail. Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed. The court clarified that any observations made would not affect the proceedings before the trial court.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of, and the judgment was ordered to be uploaded on the website forthwith.

---