Regular bail granted in money laundering case involving excise policy corruption after noting completed investigations and no flight risk

Delhi HC granted regular bail to applicant in money laundering case involving excise policy corruption for 2021-22. Court noted prosecution complaint filed, investigations complete, and applicant summoned. Applicant, a 50-year-old educated businessman running family alcohol distribution business for 55 years, has deep societal roots and poses no flight risk. Evidence being documentary, no witness tampering likelihood exists. Citing Manish Sisodia case, court emphasized prolonged incarceration shouldn't become punishment without trial, and Article 21 liberty rights supersede statutory restrictions. Bail granted with conditions, noting applicant's better position compared to co-accused who received bail.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Applicant's arrest and detention.
2. Applicant's involvement in the formulation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22.
3. Allegations of kickbacks and money laundering.
4. Admissibility and reliability of evidence under Section 50 PMLA, 2002.
5. Applicant's entitlement to bail under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Applicant's Arrest and Detention:
The Applicant, a highly-educated individual with significant business interests, was arrested on 01.03.2023 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and produced before the Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi. Despite multiple supplementary prosecution complaints (SPCs), the Applicant was not initially made an accused. The Applicant argued that his detention was illegal and prolonged, violating his Fundamental Right to Life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that the Applicant had joined investigations multiple times and had been in custody for nearly seventeen months without substantial evidence implicating him directly in the alleged offenses.

2. Applicant's Involvement in the Formulation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22:
The Applicant was accused of being actively involved in the conspiracy to draft the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 and facilitating kickbacks. The Applicant argued that he had no role in the policy formulation and that mere meetings were not sufficient to prove a conspiracy. The court observed that the evidence against the Applicant was primarily based on statements under Section 50 PMLA, 2002, which were contradictory and lacked substantive corroboration. The court also noted that the Applicant was not the sole recipient of the draft policy, which was already in the public domain.

3. Allegations of Kickbacks and Money Laundering:
The ED alleged that the Applicant was involved in a scheme where kickbacks were disguised through credit notes and other financial transactions. The Applicant countered these allegations by providing detailed explanations and documentary evidence, including the fact that profits from foreign liquor sales were not subject to the alleged 12% margin. The court found that the allegations were circumstantial and lacked direct evidence implicating the Applicant. The court also noted that other co-accused individuals had been granted bail in similar circumstances.

4. Admissibility and Reliability of Evidence under Section 50 PMLA, 2002:
The Applicant argued that statements under Section 50 PMLA, 2002, were inadmissible without corroboration and could not be relied upon as substantive evidence. The court observed that while such statements could be considered, they were not ipso facto reliable and their veracity was a matter for trial. The court cited various judgments supporting the view that uncorroborated statements of co-accused could not be the sole basis for denying bail.

5. Applicant's Entitlement to Bail under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002:
The Applicant contended that he met the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002, and satisfied the triple test for bail. The court noted that the Applicant had deep roots in society, was not a flight risk, and there was no likelihood of him tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The court also considered the prolonged incarceration and the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. The court granted bail to the Applicant, imposing stringent conditions to ensure his attendance at trial and prevent any interference with the investigation.

Conclusion:
The court admitted the Applicant to bail, subject to several conditions, including furnishing a bail bond, surrendering his passport, and reporting to the Investigating Officer regularly. The court emphasized that the observations made were without prejudice to the trial and disposed of the petition, directing communication of the order to the concerned authorities.

---