2025 (5) TMI 2232 - HC - Money Laundering

Bail under PMLA for alleged exam paper leak assistance denied where accused allegedly aided printing, concealment and receipt of proceeds.

Bail under the PMLA proviso was refused where the petitioner, a bank employee, allegedly assisted a co-accused in unauthorised leaking of an examination ... Bail under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Scope of money-laundering liability assistance, concealment, acquisition and possession as constituting proceeds of crime - Judicial discretion in granting bail under the PMLA - Applicability of Section 3 of the PMLA - Applicability of Section 4 of the PMLA - Bail application u/s 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the petitioner was employed as Deputy Manager at SBI Kohinoor Branch, Jaipur. The petitioner was arrested on 02.04.2023 concerning the paper leak related to the Teacher Grade-II Examination, 2022. In connivance with Anil Kumar Meena, the petitioner played a significant role in the unauthorised leaking of the REET examination paper. The investigation revealed that the petitioner was aware of the REET paper and actively assisted the other co-accused, Anil Kumar Meena, by arranging a printer at her residence in Jaipur, where the question paper was formatted and printed for circulation. The petitioner continuously communicated with the co-accused, Anil Kumar Meena, and the call detail records collected by the Investigating Agency substantiated the allegations. Furthermore, the petitioner received financial benefits from the proceeds of the REET examination. At the instance of co-accused Anil Kumar Meena Rs. 20 lakhs was recovered from the petitioner’s father’s house. This shows that the petitioner facilitated the other co-accused hiding the amount gathered in connection with the leaked paper. Though the other evidence collected regarding the petitioner’s role in the paper leakage pertains to the period before the incident, the evidence gathered so far points out the petitioner's role in the alleged crime. Section 3 of the PMLA is applicable even if the petitioner has not directly generated the money through criminal activity but only based on assistance provided to the other co-accused involved in such criminal activity. The co-accused, Anil Kumar Meena, was the kingpin in the paper leakage, and the petitioner, Anita Kumari, assisted her. For example, she arranged a printer at her residence and concealed the money received from the paper leakage, etc. Therefore, at this juncture, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not involved in the generation of proceeds of crime. Therefore, considering the above facts, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the instant bail application of the petitioner is hereby dismissed. Issues: Whether the accused-petitioner, a woman arrested in connection with alleged offences under the PMLA, is entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA.Analysis: The plea relied on the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA and authorities permitting discretionary bail to a woman; however, the proviso is discretionary and does not mandate release. Evidence relied on by the prosecution includes alleged active participation in the predicate offence, furnishing of a printer at the petitioners residence for formatting/printing the questioned paper, call-detail records showing regular communication with the kingpin, recovery of cash linked to the scheme from premises connected to the petitioners family, supplementary charge sheets and numerous witnesses, and documentary/material evidence indicating receipt of funds from the co-accused. The PMLA scope covers acquisition, possession or concealment of proceeds of crime and extends to persons who assist or facilitate generation or concealment of such proceeds. The factual matrix shows material on record suggesting involvement in facilitating the scheduled offence and receipt/concealment of proceeds, making it not appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.Conclusion: Bail application dismissed; decision in favour of Respondent.