2024 (9) TMI 1177 - HC - Money Laundering

Applicant granted regular bail under Section 120B IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act after prolonged detention since November 2022

Delhi HC granted regular bail to applicant charged under Section 120B IPC and Sections 7/7A/8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Court noted ... Seeking grant of regular bail - bail sought on medical grounds - Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 7/7A/8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT:- The Applicant has not retracted any statements till date and was the first accused to complete inspection of unrelied documents suggesting that his conduct has been cooperative in the investigation - The investigations qua the Applicant are complete in the present matter. It is admitted that the Applicant has been behind bars since 29.11.2022, there are around 69,000 pages of documents involved in both CBI and ED matters. Moreover, there are 493 witnesses, who have to be examined on behalf of the prosecution. In the same case, the other accused persons, namely, Manish Sisodia, K.Kavitha, Vijay Nair, Sameer Mahendru, Abishek Boinpally have already been admitted to bail in similar circumstances. In the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial. It was further observed that fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution is superior to statutory restrictions and reiterated the principle that “bail is the rule and refusal is an exception”. Insofar as the role of the Applicant in the present case is concerned, he stands on a better footing that the other co-accused, who have been recently granted bail. In the present case, the Applicant is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing trial. Regardless, conditions can be imposed to ensure the Applicant’s attendance to face the trial. The Applicant is directed to be released forthwith on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed. Issues Involved:1. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 45 PMLA, 20022. Applicant's Medical Condition3. Allegations of Misuse of Interim Bail4. Involvement in Money Laundering5. Applicant's Conduct and Flight Risk6. Prolonged Incarceration and Right to LibertyDetailed Analysis:1. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 45 PMLA, 2002The Applicant filed a Bail Application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 read with Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, seeking regular bail in ECIR No. ECIR/HIU-II/14/2022. The Applicant argued that he is a well-established businessman and law-abiding citizen with deep roots in society. The Applicant was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on 29.11.2022 and has been cooperating with the investigation.2. Applicant's Medical ConditionThe Applicant submitted that he suffers from several life-threatening diseases such as Morbid Obesity, Complicated Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome, Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy, Fatty Liver Grade III, PIVD, and Coronary Heart Disease. He argued that these conditions cannot be effectively treated in custody and cited various medical experts who recommended 'Bariatric Surgery'. The Applicant underwent the surgery on 18.08.2023 and sought bail on medical grounds, claiming that he is a 'sick' and 'infirm' individual under the proviso of Section 45 (1) PMLA, 2002.3. Allegations of Misuse of Interim BailThe Respondent argued that the Applicant violated the order of the Special PMLA Court by undergoing surgery at Fortis Hospital, Gurugram, instead of Max Saket Hospital. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant has spent around 165 days outside prison on interim bail and has misused the liberty granted for private treatment. The Respondent contended that the Applicant manipulated his medical condition to seek bail.4. Involvement in Money LaunderingThe Respondent alleged that the Applicant is directly involved in generating proceeds of crime and bribing government officials in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. The Applicant was accused of collecting Rs. 2.5 crore as kickbacks and being a beneficiary of profits from various entities. The Respondent argued that the Applicant controlled these entities through proxies and was involved in the transfer and concealment of proceeds of crime worth Rs. 7.11 crore.5. Applicant's Conduct and Flight RiskThe Respondent submitted that the Applicant destroyed or changed his mobile phones multiple times and did not provide the phone used during the scam. There was a reasonable apprehension of evidence being destroyed if the Applicant was granted bail. The Respondent also argued that the Applicant is a flight risk and could evade the process of law.6. Prolonged Incarceration and Right to LibertyThe Applicant argued that the investigation against him is complete, and he has been cooperative throughout. The Applicant cited various judgments, including Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, where the Supreme Court observed that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty should not become punishment without trial. The Applicant emphasized that the fundamental right of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is superior to statutory restrictions.Conclusion:The Court admitted the Applicant to bail, considering his medical condition, cooperative conduct, and the principle that 'bail is the rule and refusal is an exception.' The Court imposed several conditions, including surrendering the passport, reporting to the Investigating Officer, and not tampering with evidence or contacting witnesses. The petition was disposed of, and the order was communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent and Trial Court.