Bail granted in money laundering case as ED fails to establish link between crime proceeds and accused's bank accounts under section 50 PMLA

The HC granted bail to the petitioner in a money laundering case despite stringent PMLA provisions. The court found that ED failed to establish the link between proceeds of crime and petitioner's bank accounts, and prosecution cannot commence solely on co-accused statements under section 50 PMLA. The petitioner was not named in the predicate offense FIR or charge sheet. Considering prolonged custody of eleven months without interrogation, voluminous evidence requiring extensive trial time, and the constitutional right to speedy trial, the court released the petitioner on bail with stringent conditions to address concerns about witness tampering and absconding.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Petitioner's involvement in the predicate offence.
2. Validity of evidence against the petitioner.
3. Petitioner's custodial status and right to bail.
4. Applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 45 of the PMLA.
5. Conditions for granting bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Petitioner's Involvement in the Predicate Offence:

The petitioner was not named in the FIR, charge sheet, or supplementary charge sheet submitted by the CBI concerning the predicate offence. The Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) initiated proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) based on the alleged illegalities in the selection process for assistant teachers, but the petitioner was only named in the fourth supplementary prosecution complaint. The petitioner's alleged involvement surfaced from statements by co-accused Tapas Kumar Mondal and Kuntal Ghosh, which are not considered substantive evidence at this stage. The E.D. has not established a direct link between the petitioner and the proceeds of crime.

2. Validity of Evidence Against the Petitioner:

The E.D. relied on statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, voice recordings, and alleged financial transactions to implicate the petitioner. However, the court noted that the statements of co-accused cannot be the sole basis for prosecution. The truth and veracity of these statements need to be weighed during trial. The E.D. also seized documents and electronic devices from the petitioner's premises, but whether these constitute an unbroken money trail leading to the petitioner is a matter for trial.

3. Petitioner's Custodial Status and Right to Bail:

The petitioner has been in custody for approximately one year and six months, with no custodial interrogation for the last eleven months. The court acknowledged that prolonged incarceration without trial should not be permitted to become punishment. The delay in trial is not wholly attributable to the petitioner, and the E.D. intends to rely on voluminous evidence, indicating that the trial's conclusion is not imminent.

4. Applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 45 of the PMLA:

The court emphasized that Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, should be read into the conditions for granting bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. The Supreme Court has held that bail is a rule, and refusal is an exception, especially when prolonged incarceration occurs without conviction. The court found that the petitioner's further detention was not justified, given the lack of recent interrogation and the nature of the evidence.

5. Conditions for Granting Bail:

The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions, including surrendering his passport, not leaving the trial court's jurisdiction without permission, appearing at all court hearings, not tampering with evidence, and not engaging in criminal activity. The court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail application and should not influence the trial's merits.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petitioner's application for bail, considering the prolonged incarceration, lack of substantive evidence at this stage, and the petitioner's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

---