2025 (3) TMI 1036 - HC - Money Laundering

Interim Bail Denied: Court Upholds Strict Conditions of Section 45 Under Money Laundering Act, Prioritizing Applicant's Health

The HC denied the applicant's request for interim bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court emphasized the stringent conditions ... Money Laundering - seeking grant of interim bail due to the alleged medical conditions of his family members and the inability of his wife to care for them adequately - HELD THAT:- It is admitted that the applicant was arrested by the police on 29.05.2024, when he had returned to India on 25.04.2024. He was abroad for many years prior to that. It is stated that the age of the father of the applicant is 80 years and the age of the mother is 70 years. They both are old patients. The wife of the applicant is looking after them. She has soft tissue issue. She is walking around. Conclusion - Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on interim bail. Accordingly, the interim bail application deserves to be rejected. The interim bail application is rejected. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered by the Court was whether the applicant should be granted interim bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, due to the alleged medical conditions of his family members and the inability of his wife to care for them adequately.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe applicant sought interim bail under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The legal framework for granting bail under the Act is stringent, particularly under Section 45, which imposes conditions for bail, emphasizing that bail may only be granted if the applicant himself is unwell, not merely due to the illness of family members.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Court considered the applicant's request for interim bail based on the health conditions of his elderly parents and the alleged incapacity of his wife due to a foot fracture. The Court noted that the applicant's first bail application had already been rejected, and the Supreme Court had allowed him to renew the application after some time.Key Evidence and FindingsThe Court evaluated the claims regarding the health conditions of the applicant's family. The applicant's counsel argued that his presence was necessary at home to care for his parents, especially his mother, who was a chronic cardiac patient. The Enforcement Directorate (ED), however, contested these claims, stating that the applicant's wife had only a soft tissue injury and was capable of visiting the applicant in jail regularly.The ED further argued that the applicant's parents had a history of old ailments requiring continuous treatment, which did not justify interim bail. The Court noted that the ED had recorded the statement of the doctor to verify the grounds for interim bail, but the Court did not consider these statements in its decision.Application of Law to FactsThe Court applied the stringent conditions of Section 45 of the Act, which prioritize the applicant's health over family circumstances as grounds for bail. The Court found that the applicant's situation did not meet the criteria for interim bail since the applicant himself was not unwell, and his wife was managing the care of his parents despite her injury.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe applicant's counsel argued for either interim bail or an arrangement for the applicant to visit his family while in police custody. The ED opposed this, emphasizing that the applicant's wife was capable of fulfilling her duties and that the parents' conditions were not new. The Court sided with the ED's arguments, finding no compelling reason to grant interim bail.ConclusionsThe Court concluded that the circumstances presented by the applicant did not warrant the granting of interim bail. The Court emphasized the lack of new or compelling evidence to justify a deviation from the stringent bail conditions under the Act.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that 'there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on interim bail,' underscoring the strict interpretation of the bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Court reiterated that the health conditions of family members do not constitute sufficient grounds for bail unless the applicant himself is unwell.The final determination was to reject the interim bail application, maintaining the applicant's judicial custody under the provisions of the Act.