Bail denied in money laundering case for illegal mining and stone chip transportation under Section 3 PMLA

The HC dismissed the bail application in a money laundering case involving illegal mining activities. The petitioner was found to be directly involved in transporting illegal stone chips through inland vessels operated by co-accused persons, facilitating extortion and illegal mining operations. The court held that money laundering is a continuing offense under Section 3 of PMLA with wider reach, and statements recorded under Section 50 are admissible evidence. Regarding parity claims, the court ruled that parity principles apply only when facts and involvement are identical between co-accused persons. Finding sufficient prima facie evidence of guilt and no exceptional grounds, the court rejected the bail application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the petitioner's involvement in money laundering under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002.
2. Examination of the petitioner's plea for bail under Sections 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Consideration of the principle of parity in granting bail.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Petitioner's Involvement in Money Laundering:
The petitioner was alleged to be involved in illegal mining and transportation of stone chips in Sahebganj District. The investigation revealed that the petitioner, along with his associates, controlled the illegal mining operations and collected levies from trucks carrying stone chips. The petitioner was found to have acquired proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 4,28,81,865/- and used them to procure a tender for ferry services. The investigation also revealed that the petitioner deposited significant amounts of cash in bank accounts, which were proceeds of crime. The court held that the petitioner's involvement in the alleged crime could not be lightly brushed aside and that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PML Act was independent of the scheduled offence.

2. Examination of the Petitioner's Plea for Bail:
The court examined the petitioner's plea for bail and the arguments presented by both parties. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was not an accused in the scheduled offence, and the offence under Section 3 of the PML Act would not be attracted. The counsel also argued that there was a delay in registering the ECIR and that the petitioner's involvement in illegal mining did not constitute a scheduled offence under the PML Act. The respondent-ED opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner was closely associated with the prime accused and deeply involved in illegal activities. The court referred to various provisions of the PML Act and judicial pronouncements, including the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., and held that the conditions specified under Section 45 of the PML Act were mandatory and needed to be complied with. The court concluded that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PML Act and that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was guilty of the alleged offences.

3. Consideration of the Principle of Parity in Granting Bail:
The petitioner's counsel argued for bail on the ground of parity, citing the case of co-accused Pashupati Yadav, who had been granted bail. The court examined the principle of parity and held that it could only be applied if the facts of the case were identical. The court found that the case of the petitioner was distinguishable from that of Pashupati Yadav, as the petitioner was directly involved in the illegal activities and had a significant role in the acquisition, possession, and use of proceeds of crime. The court also noted that the bail applications of other co-accused, Pankaj Mishra and Prem Prakash, had been rejected. The court concluded that the principle of parity did not apply in the petitioner's case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitioner's application for bail, holding that the petitioner had failed to make out a special case for the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail. The court emphasized the gravity of the alleged offences and the sufficient material collected by the respondent-ED to show the petitioner's prima facie guilt. The views expressed in the order were stated to be prima facie for consideration of the matter of bail only.

---