Money laundering allegations involving proceeds of crime and a forged sale deed, with parity claim rejected; regular bail denied.

In a prosecution under the PMLA, the dominant issue was whether the applicant deserved regular bail despite allegations of involvement in laundering, including receipt of proceeds of crime and use of a forged deed in execution of a sale. The HC held that the allegations against the applicant and co-accused were serious, and parity with a co-accused released on bail was inapplicable because that co-accused stood on a different footing as a purchaser, while an alleged accomplice's bail had been rejected by a coordinate Bench. Regular bail was refused and the application was rejected.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether, on the allegations in the money-laundering complaint concerning preparation and use of a forged historical deed and execution of sale transactions of alleged Government land through power of attorney, the petitioner had made out a case for grant of regular bail for the offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

(ii) Whether the petitioner's plea that he merely acted as a power of attorney holder, had no criminal antecedent, and allegedly received no money (and thus no "proceeds of crime" attributable to him) justified grant of regular bail.

(iii) Whether parity based on bail granted to a purchaser-accused, or the rejection of bail of another alleged accomplice, materially affected the bail determination.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Entitlement to regular bail in light of the allegations in the complaint

Legal framework: The Court considered the bail request in connection with allegations of commission of the offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, as reflected in the complaint materials placed before it.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the complaint and noted disclosures indicating that a forged deed (described as of 1948) was prepared and used as the basis for executing transactions, including execution of a sale deed in which the petitioner was stated to be a power of attorney holder. The complaint further disclosed a described modus operandi of using forged documentation and power of attorney arrangements to deal with land stated to be Government land. On this examination, the Court treated the allegations as serious and directly implicating the petitioner along with other accused in the alleged mechanism.

Conclusion: Considering the nature of allegations and the complaint disclosures, the Court was not inclined to grant regular bail.

Issue (ii): Effect of the petitioner's defence of limited role, lack of antecedents, and claim of non-receipt of money

Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner argued that the only allegation was that he sold the land as a power of attorney holder, that he had no criminal antecedent, and that he did not receive any money, thereby contending that "proceeds of crime" were not made out against him. The Court, however, relied on the complaint's narrative that the petitioner was part of the alleged connivance in preparation and use of the forged deed and was among those in whose favour the power of attorney was given, culminating in execution of sale deeds. The Court also noted the complaint's disclosure that although the deed consideration was shown as a substantially higher amount, only a smaller amount was reflected as paid from a specified account of one proprietor concern, reinforcing the seriousness and structured nature of the alleged transactions.

Conclusion: The Court did not accept the petitioner's stated limited-role and non-receipt contentions as sufficient to justify bail in the face of the complaint materials indicating his involvement; bail was refused.

Issue (iii): Parity and comparative treatment of co-accused

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that one accused who was the purchaser had been granted regular bail, but distinguished that position on the footing that the person was alleged to be a purchaser. The Court also took note that bail of another accused described as an accomplice had been rejected, and treated that as relevant in assessing the petitioner's request given the alleged comparable role within the described modus operandi.

Conclusion: Parity did not favour the petitioner; the Court distinguished the purchaser's bail and found the rejection of bail of another alleged accomplice consistent with denying bail to the petitioner.

---