Court grants bail to petitioner in money laundering case citing cooperation with investigation and legal precedents

The court granted bail to the petitioner in a case involving allegations of money laundering and corruption. The court considered the stringent conditions of Section 45 of PMLA, the petitioner's role in the offense, cooperation with the investigation, and legal precedents favoring bail. Despite being implicated in the offense, no charge sheet was filed, and the petitioner had been cooperating. The court emphasized that bail is the rule and granted bail to the petitioner, requiring cooperation with the investigation and imposing certain conditions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the petitioner's arrest under PMLA.
2. Compliance with Section 45 of PMLA for bail.
3. Examination of the petitioner's role and cooperation with the investigation.
4. Consideration of precedents and legal principles for granting bail.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the petitioner's arrest under PMLA
The petitioner was arrested under Sections 437 and 439 of the CrPC, seeking bail in connection with a case involving allegations of money laundering and corruption. The case was initially registered under various sections of IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on a report by the Chairman of APSSDC, alleging swindling of government funds. The investigation revealed that funds were diverted through shell companies, and SEPL, incorporated post the tri-party agreement among DTSPL, SISW, and APSSDC, played a central role in this diversion. The petitioner was implicated as having control over these entities and facilitating the diversion of funds.

Issue 2: Compliance with Section 45 of PMLA for bail
Section 45 of PMLA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, including the requirement that the Public Prosecutor be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application and the court must be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. The court examined whether these conditions were met in the petitioner's case. The petitioner argued that no charge sheet had been filed in the predicate offense, and he had been cooperating with the investigation. The court noted that the petitioner had been in jail since 04.03.2023, and no incriminating material was seized during searches of his premises.

Issue 3: Examination of the petitioner's role and cooperation with the investigation
The petitioner was accused of circulating funds among entities connected to him and facilitating the diversion of government funds. Despite being implicated in the predicate offense, no charge sheet had been filed, and the petitioner had been granted bail in that case. The court noted that the petitioner had been cooperating with the investigation, attending multiple times, and providing explanations for the amounts transferred to his account.

Issue 4: Consideration of precedents and legal principles for granting bail
The court referred to several precedents, including Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Sanjay Raghunath Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, which emphasized that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The court noted that the petitioner had been in jail for a considerable period, and there were no other complaints against him. The court concluded that continued incarceration was not justified and granted bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

Conclusion:
The Criminal Petition is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail on executing a personal bond with sureties. The petitioner must cooperate with the investigation, attend weekly, and surrender his passport.

---