Delhi High Court grants regular bail in PMLA case involving illegal coal excavation after 28-month custody under Section 45

Delhi HC granted regular bail to applicant in PMLA case involving illegal coal excavation and theft from ECL leasehold area. Court noted that while Section 45 PMLA imposes stringent conditions, it doesn't create absolute restraint on bail. Considering applicant's 28-month incarceration, completion of investigation, documentary nature of evidence, compliance with previous bail conditions, and no flight risk concerns, court balanced individual liberty under Article 21 with society's interests. Bail granted with personal bond of Rs.5 lakh and two sureties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for regular bail under Sections 45 and 46 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) read with Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. Allegations against the applicant regarding illegal coal mining and money laundering.
3. Compliance with twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA.
4. Incarceration duration and right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. Admissibility and reliability of evidence.
6. Flight risk and potential tampering with evidence.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Regular Bail:
The applicant sought regular bail under Sections 45 and 46 of PMLA read with Section 439 Cr.P.C. He argued that he had been wrongly implicated and had cooperated with the investigation, joining it on multiple occasions and providing statements.

2. Allegations Against the Applicant:
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged that the applicant was involved in illegal coal mining and laundering of proceeds of crime (POC). The applicant was one of the four partners in the illegal coal mining business, holding a 25% stake. The ED claimed that the applicant received POC amounting to Rs. 89.04 crores through complex and multi-layered transactions involving sham companies.

3. Compliance with Twin Conditions under Section 45 of PMLA:
Section 45 of PMLA stipulates twin conditions for bail: the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application, and the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The court noted that these conditions do not impose an absolute restraint on the grant of bail and must be exercised judiciously.

4. Incarceration Duration and Right to Speedy Trial:
The applicant had been in judicial custody since 02.06.2022, and the trial had not commenced. The court emphasized the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, noting that prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to a violation of the right to personal liberty. The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, highlighting that bail should be the rule and jail an exception, especially in cases of long incarceration and delayed trials.

5. Admissibility and Reliability of Evidence:
The ED relied on loose diaries, registers, and handwritten notes seized from Niraj Singh and the premises of Anup Majee. The applicant argued that these documents were inadmissible under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and could not be used to charge him. The court refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits of the evidence, noting that these issues would be best addressed during the trial.

6. Flight Risk and Potential Tampering with Evidence:
The court addressed the prosecution's concerns about the applicant being a flight risk and potential tampering with evidence by imposing stringent bail conditions. The applicant was required to surrender his passport, provide his permanent residential address, keep his mobile number active, appear before the trial court as required, refrain from criminal activity, and contact the Investigating Officer (IO) regularly.

Conclusion:
The court granted the applicant bail, considering his long incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding soon. The bail was granted subject to stringent conditions to mitigate any risk of flight or tampering with evidence. The court emphasized that the observations made in the judgment would not influence the merits of the case during the trial.

---