Regular bail denied in money laundering case under Section 45(1) PMLA for cattle smuggling proceeds

The Delhi HC dismissed a regular bail application in a money laundering case under PMLA. The court found prima facie sufficient material showing the applicant's involvement in laundering proceeds from cattle smuggling through various transactions and shell companies. Despite acknowledging Article 21 guarantees personal liberty, the court held the applicant failed to satisfy twin conditions under Section 45(1) PMLA - reasonable grounds for believing innocence and likelihood of not committing offences while on bail. The court applied statutory presumption under Section 24 PMLA regarding proceeds of crime. Medical grounds for bail were rejected as the applicant failed to demonstrate inadequate treatment facilities in custody.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. Allegations of money laundering under PMLA.
3. Connection between the applicant and the proceeds of crime (PoC).
4. Admissibility of evidence, including diary entries and statements under Section 50 of PMLA.
5. Applicant's medical condition and its impact on bail consideration.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:
The applicant sought regular bail in connection with a case registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The application was filed through his brother and pairokar Abdul Hannan.

2. Allegations of Money Laundering under PMLA:
The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with others, was involved in illegal activities related to cattle smuggling, which generated and acquired PoC. The applicant allegedly deposited around Rs. 12.8 Crores in the joint bank account of Badal Krishna Sanyal and Tania Sanyal through his employee Manoj Sana as a bribe to Satish Kumar, a Commandant in BSF, for providing protection in cattle smuggling. Additionally, Rs. 6.1 Crores were allegedly paid to Vinay Mishra and his brother Vikas Mishra through Manoj Sana in cash on different occasions.

3. Connection between the Applicant and the Proceeds of Crime (PoC):
The ED's case was based on the diary entries of Manoj Sana, which were corroborated by cash deposit slips. The investigation revealed that these funds were PoC generated from cattle smuggling and laundered through various transactions and shell companies. The applicant's companies, such as HMPL and HIPL, showed exponential growth in turnover, which was allegedly due to the illegal proceeds from cattle smuggling. The funds were used to purchase properties, including a property in CR Park, New Delhi.

4. Admissibility of Evidence:
The applicant contested the admissibility of the diary entries and statements under Section 50 of PMLA. The court noted that the diary was maintained by Manoj Sana in the ordinary course of business and was recovered from his possession, thus presuming its authenticity under Section 22 of PMLA. The statements under Section 50 of PMLA were considered admissible and could form a formidable case against the applicant.

5. Applicant's Medical Condition:
The applicant claimed to suffer from various medical ailments and sought bail under the Proviso to Section 45 of PMLA, which provides exceptions for sick or infirm individuals. However, the court found that the medical issues raised could be treated in the jail hospital or referral hospitals and did not warrant the benefit of the proviso.

Analysis and Findings:
The court emphasized the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to personal liberty, but also noted the need to balance this with the larger interest of society. The court referred to various judgments highlighting the gravity of economic offences and the stringent conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for granting bail. The court found prima facie sufficient material to show the applicant's involvement in the alleged offence of money laundering and the connection of the monies involved to the predicate offence as PoC. The court also noted that the applicant had failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 (1) of PMLA, which require showing that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Conclusion:
The bail application was dismissed, and the court found that the applicant had not met the threshold of the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA. The court also rejected the argument that the applicant's medical conditions warranted bail, as these could be treated within the jail facilities.

---