Petitioner granted regular bail in money laundering case under Section 45 PMLA for proceeds under Rs 1 crore

Delhi HC granted regular bail to petitioner in money laundering case under PMLA, 2002. Petitioner was accused of projecting and concealing property worth Rs. 10.83 lakhs as proceeds of crime. Court found petitioner's role was miniscule compared to 14 main accused (MPs/MLAs) who remained unarrested. Since proceeds involved were less than Rs. 1 crore, case fell under proviso exempting twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA. Court noted petitioner cooperated with investigation, posed no flight risk, and satisfied triple test for bail. Bail granted with conditions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the petitioner's arrest and remand.
2. Petitioner's involvement in money laundering under PMLA, 2002.
3. Applicability of the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 for granting bail.
4. Petitioner's medical condition and its relevance to bail.
5. Parity in treatment with other accused persons.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Petitioner's Arrest and Remand:
The petitioner argued that his arrest was illegal as he was detained at the airport without being provided the grounds for arrest. The respondent countered that the arrest was in accordance with Section 19 of PMLA, 2002, and the grounds for arrest were supplied to the petitioner, which he acknowledged in writing. The court noted that the legality of arrest cannot be questioned after a competent court has passed an order of remand, as established in previous cases like *Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Rahul Modi*. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument regarding the illegality of the arrest and remand.

2. Petitioner's Involvement in Money Laundering:
The petitioner was accused of laundering proceeds of crime generated by other accused persons, including Lalu Prasad Yadav and his family members. The court observed that the petitioner, through his companies, was involved in acquiring and transferring properties that were proceeds of crime. Despite being cited as a witness in the predicate offence, the court clarified that the petitioner could still be an accused under PMLA, 2002, as the offences are independent. This position was supported by precedents like *Pavana Dibbur vs. Directorate of Enforcement* and *Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary vs. Union of India*.

3. Applicability of Twin Conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002:
The petitioner argued that the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002, were not applicable as the amount involved was less than Rs. 1 crore. The court noted that the allegations against the petitioner primarily involved a land parcel worth Rs. 10.83 lakhs, which, even if its value was understated, would still be less than Rs. 1 crore. Thus, the petitioner's case fell under the proviso to Section 45, exempting him from satisfying the twin conditions for bail. The court also considered the petitioner's chronic physical ailments, which further supported his eligibility for bail without satisfying the twin conditions.

4. Petitioner's Medical Condition and Relevance to Bail:
The petitioner had previously been granted interim bail on medical grounds, which was extended due to his health issues. The court acknowledged the petitioner's chronic ailments, including morbid obesity and heart issues, and noted that he could be considered 'sick and infirm,' entitling him to bail under the proviso to Section 45 of PMLA, 2002. This consideration was in line with the Supreme Court's stance in cases like *Prem Prakash vs. Union of India through ED* and *Vijay Nair vs. Directorate of Enforcement*.

5. Parity in Treatment with Other Accused Persons:
The petitioner argued that he was the only one arrested among the 17 accused, despite his role being minor compared to others. The court observed that none of the main accused, who were the primary beneficiaries, had been arrested, reflecting a pick-and-choose policy by the respondent. The court found this disparity in treatment significant and noted that the petitioner had consistently cooperated with the investigation. The court concluded that the principle of parity, along with the petitioner's cooperation and lack of flight risk, justified granting bail.

Conclusion:
The court directed the petitioner to be released on bail, subject to conditions like furnishing a personal bond, reporting to the investigating officer, and not leaving the country without permission. The court emphasized that the observations made were without prejudice to the trial.

---