2024 (4) TMI 1205 - HC - Money Laundering

Bail denied in money laundering case involving illegal teacher recruitment under Section 45 PMLA twin conditions

HC rejected bail application in money laundering case involving illegal recruitment of assistant primary teachers. Court found sufficient evidence ... Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - entire process of recruitment of assistant primary teachers were done illegally and for extraneous considerations - creation of shell-companies of the petitioner - requirements of section 45 of PMLA or not - Admissibility of evidence obtained under Section 50 of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- On taking into account the materials available in the instant case, particularly, the seizures, which were effected both in respect of the movable and immoveable assets, the consistent version of the witnesses under section 50 of the PMLA as well as the corroborating materials which establishes the relationship between Partha Chatterjee and Aripta Mukherjee, which demonstrates trust, faith and confidence from both the sides, as the petitioner is the nominee in the bank account and insurance policies and the immoveable properties which have been purchased through different companies were in the name of Ms. Arpita Mukherjee. Thus the statement which points to the cash seizures and jewelleries from the two flats do not at this stage create any circumstance in favour of the petitioner to overcome the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA. On the aspect of period of detention of the petitioner, it has been held in Manish Sisodia –vs.-Central Bureau of Investigation, [2023 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT] and in Satyendar Kumar Jain [2024 (3) TMI 862 - SUPREME COURT] that right to speedy trial and access to justice is a valuable right as enshrined in the Constitution of India and the provisions of section 436A of the Cr.P.C. both applies to cases under the provisions of the PMLA, 2002 subject to the provisions and the explanations provided therein. The petitioner would definitely be entitled to involve state right under the relevant provisions when the conditions of the said provisions are satisfied. The petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the present petitioner is rejected - bail application dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the arrest and detention under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).2. Involvement of the petitioner in the alleged money laundering activities.3. Admissibility of evidence obtained under Section 50 of the PMLA.4. Consideration of bail application under Section 45 of the PMLA.5. Health and age-related considerations for bail.6. Delay in trial and its impact on the bail application.7. Influence and potential tampering with evidence or witnesses.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Arrest and Detention:The petitioner was arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002, based on allegations of involvement in money laundering activities linked to a recruitment scam. The court examined the procedural aspects of the arrest, noting that all legal safeguards were observed. The arrest was predicated on the belief that the petitioner was involved in the offense of money laundering, as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA.2. Involvement in Money Laundering Activities:The investigation revealed that the petitioner, along with others, was involved in a criminal conspiracy to illegally appoint teachers in exchange for bribes, generating substantial proceeds of crime. The court highlighted the recovery of significant amounts of cash and gold from premises linked to the petitioner and his associates, which were considered proceeds of crime. The involvement was further substantiated by the creation of shell companies and the acquisition of properties using these illicit funds.3. Admissibility of Evidence under Section 50 of PMLA:The court considered the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, which are admissible in evidence. The statements of witnesses and documents produced under this section were crucial in establishing the petitioner's involvement in money laundering. The court noted that these statements could form a formidable case against the accused, as they were made during an inquiry regarding proceeds of crime.4. Consideration of Bail Application under Section 45 of PMLA:The court emphasized the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, which require the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offense and that they are not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The court found that the petitioner failed to meet these conditions, given the gravity of the allegations and the evidence presented.5. Health and Age-Related Considerations for Bail:The petitioner, aged 72 and suffering from multiple health issues, argued for bail on medical grounds. However, the court noted that the mere presence of health concerns does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, especially in cases involving serious economic offenses. The court referenced precedents where health issues were considered but did not outweigh the seriousness of the charges.6. Delay in Trial and Its Impact on Bail Application:The petitioner argued for bail due to prolonged detention and the delay in trial commencement. The court acknowledged the right to a speedy trial but emphasized that the nature and gravity of the offense, coupled with the ongoing investigation, justified continued detention. The court referenced legal precedents that prioritize the seriousness of economic offenses over the duration of pre-trial detention.7. Influence and Potential Tampering with Evidence or Witnesses:The court considered the potential for the petitioner to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, given his previous influential position. The court highlighted the need to balance the right to liberty with the public interest in ensuring a fair trial. The court found that releasing the petitioner on bail could pose a risk to the integrity of the ongoing investigation.In conclusion, the court denied the petitioner's bail application, citing the failure to satisfy the conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, the seriousness of the allegations, the admissibility of evidence under Section 50, and the potential risks associated with granting bail.