Delhi HC grants anticipatory bail in money laundering case citing absence of proceeds of crime despite Section 45 PMLA restrictions

The Delhi HC granted anticipatory bail to petitioner in a money laundering case involving unauthorized outward remittance through forged Form 15CB certificates. While acknowledging that Section 45 PMLA restricts bail rights, the court noted it doesn't impose absolute restraint. Key finding was absence of "proceeds of crime" - no property derived from criminal activity was identified. The court distinguished between the scheduled offense (document fabrication) and actual proceeds generation. Despite incriminating statements from co-accused under Section 50 PMLA, considering petitioner's health condition and lack of proceeds of crime, bail was granted on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with surety.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Whether the petitioner was involved in the commission of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
3. Whether the petitioner's health condition impacts the decision to grant bail.
4. Whether the statements of co-accused can be considered substantial evidence at the stage of bail.

Issue 1: Entitlement to Anticipatory Bail
The petitioner filed a bail application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the ECIR registered under sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The court noted that the petitioner was previously denied bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, due to the significant role attributed to him and his non-cooperation in the investigation. The court emphasized that anticipatory bail is generally granted in exceptional cases where the accused is falsely implicated to harass and humiliate him.

Issue 2: Involvement in Offences under PMLA
The investigation revealed that the petitioner, operating under the pseudonym 'Ravi Mehra,' was instrumental in the illegal remittance of forex using forged documents. Statements from co-accused and evidence collected indicated the petitioner's active involvement in the fraudulent activities. However, the court observed that the primary incriminating evidence against the petitioner were statements of co-accused recorded under section 50 of PMLA, which are admissible but their evidentiary value has to be tested at trial.

Issue 3: Health Condition of the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that he suffers from severe health issues, including renal problems requiring constant medical supervision, and has undergone multiple kidney surgeries. The court considered these health conditions significant, noting that the petitioner is a sick and infirm person, which impacts the decision to grant bail.

Issue 4: Statements of Co-Accused as Evidence
The court discussed the admissibility and evidentiary value of statements recorded under section 50 of PMLA. While these statements are admissible, their exact value must be tested at the trial stage. The court referenced the Supreme Court's observations in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, emphasizing that the evidentiary value of such statements should be assessed during the trial and not at the bail stage.

Conclusion:
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, considering his health condition, the nature of the evidence against him, and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond and comply with specific conditions, including surrendering his passport, marking his presence before the Investigating Officer, and not making any inducement to witnesses. The court clarified that the observations made in the judgment should not be taken as an opinion on the merits of the case.

---