Bail denied under Section 45 PMLA for money laundering through shell companies despite 14-month custody

HC rejected bail application under PMLA. Petitioner was involved in money laundering through shell companies with fake documentation, helping conceal proceeds of crime by routing illegally acquired money. Despite 14-month custody and investigation delays, court found petitioner failed to satisfy twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA. Court noted that while delay in custody is constitutionally concerning, the complex nature of money laundering investigations involving tracing assets abroad justifies extended detention. Investigation remains at crucial stage with complaint filed but further probe continuing.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Bail Application
2. Genesis of the Case
3. Allegations and Investigation
4. Legal Arguments and Precedents
5. Twin Conditions under Section 45 of PMLA
6. Delay and Right to Speedy Trial

Summary:

1. Bail Application:
The petitioner sought bail in connection with M.L. Case No. 01/2023, pending before the Special Judge, CBI Court No. 1, citing over 14 months of custody without progress in the trial.

2. Genesis of the Case:
The case originated from a complaint by the Regional Manager of Canara Bank, Kolkata, regarding suspicious transactions in accounts of M/s. T.M. Traders and M/s. K.K. Traders. The bank detected that the parties were from Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, and the addresses provided were fake.

3. Allegations and Investigation:
The entire credits were effected through UPI, NEFT, and RTGS transactions, transferred to multiple accounts. The National Payment Corporation of India alerted Canara Bank about unauthorized forex funding. A criminal case was initiated, and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) began their investigation, revealing transactions involving Rs. 77 crore. The petitioner was accused of assisting in opening dummy firm accounts, maintaining accountancy, and receiving commissions from scam money.

4. Legal Arguments and Precedents:
The petitioner's counsel argued on the principles of bail, emphasizing Article 21 of the Constitution, the presumption of innocence, and cited various judgments, including P. Chidambaram vs. Enforcement Directorate and Manish Sisodia vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, highlighting that bail can be granted even in economic offences if the trial is delayed.

5. Twin Conditions under Section 45 of PMLA:
The court discussed the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, which require the accused to prove prima facie that they are not guilty and are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court referred to judgments like Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, and Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, emphasizing the gravity of economic offences and the stringent conditions for bail.

6. Delay and Right to Speedy Trial:
The petitioner argued for bail based on prolonged incarceration and delay in trial. The court acknowledged the constitutional mandate of liberty and right to a speedy trial but noted that the nature of the offence required time for investigation. The court referred to Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and judgments like Manish Sisodia vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, emphasizing that delay alone is not sufficient to grant bail in cases involving economic offences.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the bail application, noting that the petitioner did not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA and that the investigation was still ongoing. The application for bail (CRM (SB) 206 of 2023) was dismissed, and all pending connected applications were disposed of.

---