Co-accused granted bail in money laundering case for limited role in assisting process, not generating proceeds

Bombay HC granted bail to co-accused in money laundering case involving CRZ-III land permission violations. Special Court found applicant did not generate or launder proceeds of crime, nor was beneficiary of such proceeds. Though prosecution alleged applicant misused authority as Sub-Divisional Officer to assist money laundering activities, court determined role was limited to knowingly assisting the process. Bail granted on PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with surety or cash security of Rs. 1 lakh.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
2. Role and involvement of the applicant in the alleged money laundering activities.
3. Comparison of the applicant's role with that of co-accused No. 1, who has been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

Summary:

1. Application for Bail:
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in connection with ECIR No. ECIR/MBZO-I/57/2022 registered with the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Mumbai Zonal Office-1. The applicant, accused No. 2, was arrested on 13/03/2023.

2. Role and Involvement of the Applicant:
The applicant, during his tenure as Sub-Divisional Officer at Dapoli, allegedly misused his position by granting illegal permission for the conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land, knowing that the land fell within Coastal Regulation Zone-III, where new construction is strictly prohibited. The Special Court observed that the applicant's role was not in generating proceeds of crime or laundering the same but in "knowingly assisting" in the money laundering activities of accused No. 1, Sadanand Kadam.

3. Comparison with Co-accused No. 1:
The co-accused No. 1 had been granted bail by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant (co-accused No. 1) is entitled to be enlarged on bail in accordance with Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA. The Special Court noted that the role of the applicant is much lesser compared to that of the accused No. 1, who was involved in generating proceeds of crime and money laundering.

Judgment:
The High Court allowed the bail application, noting that the role of the applicant is not of generating proceeds of crime and laundering the same. The applicant was granted bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. The applicant is required to deposit his passport with the Registrar(S) of the trial Court and not leave India without prior permission. The applicant must not pressurize prosecution witnesses, tamper with evidence, and must cooperate with the investigation. The request to stay the operation of the order was rejected.

---