Court denies anticipatory bail in money laundering case under PMLA, orders surrender and regular bail

The court denied the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The petitioner, linked to an NGO's financial operations, was found to have received laundered funds, created fixed deposits, and used illegal cash for transactions. The court determined that the petitioner knowingly concealed proceeds of crime and engaged in activities to acquire properties. The petitioner was directed to surrender and seek regular bail, with the court emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the need for further legal proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Anticipatory bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
2. Allegations of money laundering against the petitioner.
3. Involvement of the petitioner in the NGO's financial operations.
4. Legal arguments regarding the applicability of Section 3 and Section 45 of the PMLA.
5. Judicial precedents and their relevance to the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Anticipatory Bail under Section 45 of PMLA:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case filed under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, arising from ECIR No. PTZO/08/2018. The court examined whether the petitioner could be granted anticipatory bail given the gravity of the alleged offences under the PMLA.

2. Allegations of Money Laundering:
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, mother of the principal accused, Brajesh Thakur, received Rs. 47,14,458/- in her bank accounts from the NGO Sewa Sankalp Ewam Vikas Samiti. The funds were allegedly laundered through her account, and she created fixed deposits using illegal and unaccounted cash. Loans taken against these FDs were used to purchase vehicles, with repayments made in cash without supporting documents. The prosecution argued that the petitioner knowingly concealed proceeds of crime generated by her son.

3. Involvement in NGO's Financial Operations:
The petitioner argued that she was not associated with the NGO and was implicated solely due to her relationship with Brajesh Thakur. She claimed to be a retired government servant with no involvement in the alleged offences. The defense contended that mere transfer of money to her account did not constitute an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA unless it was shown that she was knowingly involved in money laundering activities.

4. Legal Arguments on Section 3 and Section 45 of PMLA:
The court examined Section 3 of the PMLA, which defines the offence of money laundering, and Section 45, which deals with the conditions for granting bail. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the petitioner knowingly engaged in money laundering. They cited judicial precedents, including the case of Most. Ahilya Devi vs. The State of Bihar, asserting that the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 had been declared unconstitutional. The prosecution, however, emphasized the gravity of the offence and the petitioner's deliberate concealment of proceeds of crime.

5. Judicial Precedents and Relevance:
The court considered various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors, which clarified the interpretation of Section 3 of the PMLA. The court noted that the expression "and" in Section 3 should be construed as "or" to include every process or activity related to proceeds of crime. The court also referenced the decision in Shyam Sundar Bajaj vs. Union of India, which emphasized the seriousness of money laundering offences and the need to consider twin conditions for granting bail.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner, being the mother of the main accused, received significant amounts in her bank accounts from the NGO, which were laundered. The petitioner created fixed deposits and took loans against them using illegal cash, with repayments made in cash without supporting documents. The court found that the petitioner deliberately concealed proceeds of crime and assisted in acquiring properties, projecting them as untainted.

Judgment:
The court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail, finding merit in the prosecution's arguments. The petitioner was advised to surrender before the lower court and apply for regular bail, which would be considered on its merits without prejudice from the current order.

---