Bail denied in money laundering case involving property sale proceeds and undisclosed cash deposits

The Chhattisgarh HC rejected a bail application in a money laundering case involving property sale proceeds. The applicant sold property for Rs. 2.53 crore through registered sale deed but allegedly received additional cash of Rs. 61.02 lacs, which was deposited in his bank account. In his statement under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002, the applicant admitted receiving excess amount claiming it was from fruit sales, but another witness called the supporting bill bogus. The court found prima facie involvement in money laundering offense and ruled that twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 for bail were not satisfied, making it unfit for bail grant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
3. Compliance with Section 45 of the PMLA for bail.
4. Consideration of prolonged incarceration and right to speedy trial.

Summary:

Issue 1: Grant of Regular Bail
The applicant filed for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant was arrested on 23.01.2023 in connection with Crime No. ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 registered at the Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal Office, Raipur for offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Issue 2: Allegations under PMLA
The prosecution alleged that during a search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, incriminating materials were found. The applicant was implicated in a criminal conspiracy involving illegal levy collection on coal, unaccounted cash movement, and tampering with documents. Diaries recovered indicated transactions of cash money between the main accused and others, including the applicant.

Issue 3: Compliance with Section 45 of PMLA
The court considered the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail. The applicant argued that he was not involved in the scheduled offence and had cooperated with the investigation. However, the court noted that the applicant's statements under Section 50 of the PMLA revealed inconsistencies and prima facie involvement in the offence. The court cited various judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, emphasizing the rigour of Section 45 and the necessity for the applicant to prove non-involvement in money laundering.

Issue 4: Prolonged Incarceration and Right to Speedy Trial
The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant had been in jail for over nine months and that the trial might take longer, thus justifying bail. The court referred to the Supreme Court's stance in cases like Manish Sisodia Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, which highlighted the importance of the right to a speedy trial but also pointed out that prolonged detention without trial should not become punishment. However, the court found that the applicant did not meet the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.

Conclusion:
The bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected. The court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, considering the prima facie evidence of his involvement in the alleged offences. The observations made in the judgment are specific to the bail application and do not influence the trial court's proceedings on the merits of the case.

---