High Court cancels bail due to money laundering involvement exceeding Rs. 564 crores.

The High Court set aside the trial court's order granting bail to the respondent, emphasizing the gravity of the offence, ongoing investigation, and the risk of the respondent absconding. The Court found the trial court's order lacking detailed reasoning and failing to address the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA adequately. The respondent's involvement in money laundering activities exceeding Rs. 564 crores through inflated coal prices indicated a prima facie case of guilt, leading to the cancellation of bail.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the bail granted to the respondent.
2. Compliance with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
3. Conduct and procedural propriety of the trial court.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Bail Granted to the Respondent:
The respondent was arrested under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA Act. The trial court granted bail on 16.08.2023, imposing conditions such as surrendering the passport, appearing before the court daily, and not leaving Chennai. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenged the bail, arguing that the trial court issued a non-speaking order without detailed reasoning, which was later confirmed by the High Court upon record examination.

2. Compliance with Section 45 of the PMLA:
Section 45(1) of the PMLA imposes twin conditions for granting bail in cases involving proceeds of crime exceeding one crore rupees. The High Court noted that the trial court's detailed order, made available on 21.08.2023, failed to address these conditions adequately. The High Court emphasized that the respondent's involvement in laundering over Rs. 564 crores through inflated coal prices indicated a prima facie case of guilt, thus not meeting the criteria for bail under Section 45.

3. Conduct and Procedural Propriety of the Trial Court:
The High Court found procedural irregularities in the trial court's handling of the bail order. The detailed order was not prepared at the time of granting bail, raising suspicions about the trial court's conduct. The High Court referenced the Supreme Court's dictum in Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka vs. Narasimma Prasad, stressing that a judicial officer must have the entire text of the judgment prepared before pronouncing the concluding portion in open court.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the Criminal Original Petition filed by the ED, setting aside the trial court's order granting bail to the respondent. The High Court underscored the gravity of the offence, the ongoing investigation, and the potential risk of the respondent absconding, thus justifying the cancellation of bail.

---