Former bank chairman gets bail in money laundering case, loan disbursement to landowners not proceeds of crime

The HC granted bail to a 63-year-old former chairman of J&K State Cooperative Bank in a money laundering case. The court found that bank loan disbursement to actual landowners for legitimate land transactions could not be presumed as proceeds of crime generation. The petitioner's liability could not be individualized when the loan decision was made by the Board of Management. Since the petitioner ceased being chairman in 2020, he lacked position to influence the case. Considering his age and health complications requiring medical treatment, bail was granted with personal bond of Rs. 10 lakhs and two sureties of similar amount.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the arrest and detention of the petitioner by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
2. Examination of the petitioner’s role and actions in the alleged money laundering case.
3. Evaluation of the petitioner's health condition as a ground for bail.
4. Consideration of the petitioner’s potential influence on the investigation and trial.
5. Application of legal standards for granting bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Arrest and Detention:
The petitioner was arrested on 30.11.2023 by the ED under section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in connection with Case No. ECIR/SRZO/04/2021. The arrest was based on allegations of money laundering linked to the disbursement of a loan by the J&K State Cooperative Bank, Srinagar, to the River Jhelum Cooperative House Building Society. The petitioner sought bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with section 44(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

2. Examination of the Petitioner’s Role:
The petitioner, as the then Chairman of the J&K State Cooperative Bank, Srinagar, was involved in the sanctioning and disbursement of a loan amounting to Rs. 233 crores to the River Jhelum Cooperative House Building Society. The ED alleged that the petitioner facilitated the documentation for the loan to a fictitious society without proper documents, KYC norms, or tangible security, and in violation of the bank’s credit policy. The loan amount was purportedly siphoned off and used to acquire land parcels, constituting proceeds of crime.

3. Health Condition as a Ground for Bail:
The petitioner cited his health condition, specifically a heart-related medical issue, as a significant ground for bail. The court acknowledged the petitioner’s age (63 years) and health complications, emphasizing the importance of allowing him to seek medical treatment outside custody. The court noted that neglecting his health in custody could lead to severe complications.

4. Potential Influence on Investigation and Trial:
The ED opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner, being a former influential chairman of the bank, could adversely impact the investigation and trial. They highlighted the petitioner’s potential to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses. However, the court considered that the petitioner had ceased to hold his position since 2020, reducing his ability to influence the case.

5. Legal Standards for Granting Bail:
The court evaluated the bail plea under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which requires satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. The court noted that the petitioner’s actions as chairman were part of a collective decision by the bank’s Board of Management and not solely his discretion. The court found a prima facie case for bail, emphasizing that the petitioner’s role in the loan sanctioning did not necessarily imply intent to launder money.

Conclusion:
The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10 lacs and two sureties of like amount. The petitioner was restricted from leaving the jurisdiction without permission and was required to cooperate with the investigation. The court’s observations were limited to the context of the bail application and did not prejudge the case’s merits. The connected Criminal Revision (Crl R 51/2023) was rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly.

---