2024 (8) TMI 1544 - HC - Money Laundering

Interim bail granted in money laundering case involving scholarship scam under PMLA section 45

Hitesh Gandhi Versus Enforcement Directorate Office (ED)

The HC granted interim bail to the applicant involved in a money laundering case related to a scholarship scam. Despite ED's reply, the applicant filed an ... Seeking grant of interim bail - Money Laundering - involvement in a scholarship scam - proceeds of crime - section 45 of PMLA - HELD THAT:- It is worthwhile to record herein that in view of the reply filed by the ED, the applicant was directed to file requisite affidavit to show that he is still the Director of M/s Walia Trading Limited. The said affidavit has now been filed, wherein, it has been recorded that the applicant is still the Director of ten Companies, as detailed in the said affidavit. Considering the given facts and circumstances, of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer of the applicant for interim bail can be allowed. Application allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment were:1. Whether the applicant should be granted interim bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the allegations of involvement in a scholarship scam.2. Whether the applicant's role as a director in various companies and the need to file income tax returns constitute sufficient grounds for granting interim bail.3. Whether the ongoing investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the potential for the applicant to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence should preclude the granting of interim bail.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Grant of Interim Bail under Section 483 of BNSS- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The application for interim bail was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The legal framework allows for interim bail under specific conditions, considering the nature of the offense and the circumstances of the applicant.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered the applicant's previous applications for regular bail, which were denied, and the current circumstances necessitating the filing of income tax returns for companies where the applicant is a director.- Key evidence and findings: The applicant is involved in a large-scale scholarship scam, with allegations of misappropriating funds intended for SC, ST, and OBC students. The investigation is ongoing, and the ED has opposed the bail on the grounds of potential interference with the investigation.- Application of law to facts: The Court balanced the need for the applicant to fulfill his responsibilities as a director with the risk of him influencing the investigation. The Court noted that the applicant had not misused previous interim bail granted for medical reasons.- Treatment of competing arguments: The ED argued that the applicant's release could jeopardize the investigation, while the applicant contended that his release was necessary for business obligations. The Court imposed conditions to mitigate the risk of interference.- Conclusions: The Court concluded that interim bail could be granted with strict conditions to ensure the applicant does not interfere with the investigation.2. Applicant's Role as Director and Necessity to File Tax Returns- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The necessity to fulfill business obligations, such as filing tax returns, can be considered in bail applications if it does not undermine the legal process.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged the applicant's role in multiple companies and the importance of filing tax returns, which could be a legitimate reason for temporary release.- Key evidence and findings: The applicant provided an affidavit confirming his directorship in the companies, which the Court considered credible.- Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that business obligations could justify interim bail if adequate safeguards are in place to prevent interference with justice.- Treatment of competing arguments: The Court balanced the applicant's business needs against the ED's concerns about potential tampering with evidence.- Conclusions: The Court allowed interim bail for a limited period to enable the applicant to fulfill his business obligations, with conditions to prevent misuse.3. Ongoing Investigation and Risk of Interference- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and related provisions emphasize the seriousness of economic offenses and the need for thorough investigation.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized the gravity of the allegations and the ongoing nature of the investigation, which required careful consideration of bail conditions.- Key evidence and findings: The ED highlighted the applicant's potential to influence witnesses and tamper with evidence, given his position and involvement in the scam.- Application of law to facts: The Court imposed strict conditions on the interim bail to minimize the risk of interference, including restrictions on travel and contact with witnesses.- Treatment of competing arguments: The Court addressed the ED's concerns by setting conditions that would allow for continued investigation without undue hindrance.- Conclusions: The Court granted interim bail with conditions designed to protect the integrity of the investigation.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- The Court held that interim bail could be granted under strict conditions to balance the applicant's business obligations with the need to ensure a fair investigation. The applicant was required to post a personal bail bond and two sureties, and adhere to conditions preventing interference with the investigation.- Core principles established: The judgment reinforced the principle that economic offenses require careful judicial consideration, but business obligations can be a valid consideration for interim bail if adequately safeguarded.- Final determinations on each issue: The Court allowed the interim bail application, subject to conditions, emphasizing that the decision was specific to the bail application and did not reflect on the merits of the case.The Court directed the applicant to surrender after the interim bail period and emphasized that any violation of bail conditions could lead to revocation of the bail.