Court denies bail to money laundering suspect due to strong evidence of fraudulent activities and active participation.

The court dismissed the bail application of the applicant, who was alleged to be involved in money laundering activities. The court found credible evidence of the applicant's active participation in fraudulent activities, including handling fake invoices and transferring proceeds of crime to shell companies. Despite the applicant's claims of limited involvement and challenges to the reliability of evidence, the court concluded that there was sufficient incriminating evidence to deny bail. The court emphasized that its decision was based on the probability of the applicant's involvement in the offense and not a deep dive into the evidence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Involvement in Money Laundering
2. Role and Capacity of the Applicant in the Company
3. Reliability of Evidence and Statements
4. Application of Section 45 of PMLA for Bail

Summary:

1. Involvement in Money Laundering:
The applicant was charged under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120B read with Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC, 1860, for alleged involvement in money laundering. The allegations included aiding in the fraudulent increase of inventory/stock in the account books of M/s Shakti Bhog Foods Limited (SBFL) to increase borrowings, resulting in a loss of INR 3269.42 Crore to a consortium of banks.

2. Role and Capacity of the Applicant in the Company:
The applicant claimed to be a mere shareholder and director without active involvement in SBFL's management or decision-making. He argued that his role was limited to making purchases of raw materials, particularly wheat, and was made a director only to meet quorum requirements under the Companies Act. The applicant contended that he never drew any salary or remuneration as a director. However, the investigation revealed that the applicant was the Vice President (Purchases) from 2009-2017 and was actively involved in procuring fake invoices and transferring proceeds of crime to shell companies.

3. Reliability of Evidence and Statements:
The applicant challenged the reliability of statements under Section 50 of PMLA, claiming they were cut, copy, paste. The court found these statements, along with emails and documents containing the applicant's signatures, to be credible evidence of his involvement in money laundering. Statements from employees and co-accused pointed to the applicant's active participation in fraudulent activities, including handling fake invoices and coordinating with entry operators.

4. Application of Section 45 of PMLA for Bail:
Section 45 of PMLA requires the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence of money laundering and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of "reasonable grounds" as something more than prima facie grounds, requiring substantial probable causes. Based on the evidence, the court could not find reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was not guilty. The court emphasized that it was not required to delve deep into the evidence but only to determine the probability of the applicant's involvement.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was sufficient incriminating evidence about the applicant's involvement in money laundering. The application for bail was dismissed, with the court noting that its observations were made only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and should not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

---