Bail denied in money laundering case for illegal land transfer and document fabrication under Section 45 PMLA

The Jharkhand HC dismissed a regular bail application in a money laundering case involving illegal land transfer and fabricated documents. The court held that prima facie evidence established the petitioner's involvement in activities connected with proceeds of crime, including concealment, possession, and projecting tainted property as untainted. The twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA were not satisfied for bail grant. The court rejected the parity argument, noting that the petitioner's role differed significantly from a co-accused who received bail. The burden under Section 24 PMLA to prove non-involvement in money laundering remained unmet.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Grant of regular bail u/s 439 and 440 of CrPC.
2. Allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Jurisdiction of authorities to initiate proceedings.
4. Application of the principle of parity in granting bail.

Summary:

1. Grant of Regular Bail u/s 439 and 440 of CrPC:

The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with ECIR Case No. 05 of 2023, registered for alleged offences u/s 3 punishable u/s 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner argued that no offence was committed to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA, 2002. The petitioner also contended that there was no direct involvement in the illegal transfer of land, and the ECIR was based on subsequent FIRs, making the prosecution version false.

2. Allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002:

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in a conspiracy to fraudulently acquire land using forged documents. The investigation revealed that the petitioner, along with co-accused, prepared fake deeds and sold the land at a throwaway price without paying the full consideration amount. The petitioner was accused of exerting influence and assisting in the illegal transfer of land, with money being transferred to a firm where the petitioner was the beneficial owner.

3. Jurisdiction of Authorities to Initiate Proceedings:

The petitioner argued that the authorities in Jharkhand had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings as the complaint was based on a criminal case instituted in Kolkata. The court held that the inquiry was based on the allegations in Sadar P.S. Case No. 399 of 2022, and the land was situated in Jharkhand, giving the authorities jurisdiction to initiate proceedings.

4. Application of the Principle of Parity in Granting Bail:

The petitioner sought bail on the ground of parity, citing that a co-accused, Bishnu Kumar Agarwala, had been granted bail. The court held that parity is not the law and must focus on the role attached to the accused. The court distinguished the petitioner's case from that of the co-accused, noting that the petitioner had a more significant role in the conspiracy, including exerting influence and having criminal antecedents. The court emphasized that economic offences require a different approach in bail matters and rejected the bail application.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the bail application, stating that the petitioner failed to make a prima facie case for bail. The court emphasized that the observations made were only for the purpose of considering the bail issue and would not prejudice the trial's merits.

---