Money Laundering bail contest where high court grants bail despite findings of forged documents and bribery, citing parity

Money laundering proceedings arising from alleged procurement fraud involving forged eligibility certificates and bribery are examined with emphasis on bail principles. The commentary notes investigative findings of document forgery, bribery, bank transfers and recorded communications establishing reasonable grounds of involvement; these factual indicators weighed against the accused in bail scrutiny. It highlights application of merit-based judicial review and parity in granting bail, considers the accused's role, risk of tampering and reoffending, and assesses failure to satisfy statutory twin conditions, but records judicial exercise of discretion to enlarge on bail in light of comparable grants to co-accused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail in respect of ECIR No. JPZO/29/2023 (offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) despite not satisfying the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, having regard to Article 21 and parity with co-accused who have been granted bail.

Analysis: The Court considered the competing legal frameworks: the mandatory twin conditions in Section 45 of the PMLA for grant of bail and the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21, including the right to a speedy trial. The Court examined factual material on record (including alleged forgery, bribery and bank transactions) and the role of the petitioner vis-à-vis co-accused who have been granted bail. The Court reviewed Supreme Court authorities (including Manish Sisodia and Kalvakuntla Kavitha) holding that prolonged pre-trial incarceration and unreasonable delay in trial proceedings engage Article 21 and may warrant bail notwithstanding the Section 45 conditions; that a High Court may conduct a limited merit review at the bail stage; and that parity with co-accused may be relevant where roles and circumstances are comparable. The Court weighed the prosecutorial concerns about tampering and influencing witnesses against the documentary nature of primary evidence and the possibility of imposing stringent bail conditions to mitigate risks. On balance, and noting the grant of bail to co-accused in closely related proceedings, the Court found the petitioners circumstances analogous and that continued incarceration would disproportionately infringe Article 21.

Conclusion: The bail application is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 5,00,000 each, surrender of passport, prohibition on leaving India without trial court permission, and conditions against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The decision is in favour of the petitioner.

---