Money laundering accused get bail as prolonged detention without trial violates constitutional rights under Article 21

Delhi HC granted bail to two applicants in a money laundering case involving illegal tender allotment for electromagnetic flow meters worth INR 8.80 crores. The court held that prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21 constitutional rights, justifying bail despite PMLA's stringent provisions. While applicants couldn't benefit from the monetary threshold under Section 45(1) proviso due to proceeds exceeding INR 1 crore, they satisfied twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii). The court found insufficient evidence of tampering likelihood, noting the approver's delayed and uncorroborated threat allegations. Despite prosecution's case based on unsigned Excel sheets and approver statements, the court determined applicants prima facie met bail requirements under constitutional and statutory grounds.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal questions considered in this judgment include:

- Whether the Applicants are entitled to bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

- Whether the Applicants can benefit from the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, which exempts cases involving proceeds of crime below INR 1 crore from the stringent bail conditions.

- The evidentiary value of statements made by an accomplice-turned-approver and whether such statements can substantiate the prosecution's case against the Applicants.

- Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the Applicants may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Delay in Trial and Right to Bail

- Legal Framework: The Applicants invoke Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial. The Supreme Court has previously held that prolonged incarceration without trial infringes upon this fundamental right.

- Court's Interpretation: The Court acknowledges that undue delay in trial constitutes a valid ground for bail, even under stringent statutory frameworks like the PMLA. The right to a speedy trial is integral to Article 21, and prolonged detention without foreseeable trial conclusion may justify bail.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The Applicants have been in custody for over a year, with no significant progress in the trial. The voluminous nature of the prosecution's record suggests that both trials (PMLA and the scheduled offence) will be lengthy and complex.

- Application of Law to Facts: Given the delay and the absence of any conduct by the Applicants to obstruct the trial, the Court finds that continued detention would contravene Article 21.

- Conclusions: The Court concludes that the Applicants are entitled to bail due to the delay in trial, notwithstanding the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA.

Applicability of the Proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA

- Legal Framework: The proviso to Section 45(1) exempts cases involving proceeds of crime below INR 1 crore from the twin conditions for bail.

- Court's Interpretation: The Court finds that the total proceeds of crime attributed to the Applicants exceed INR 1 crore, disqualifying them from the proviso's benefit.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The prosecution complaint attributes INR 4.26 crores to Applicant Anil Kumar Aggarwal, with INR 1.63 crores allegedly retained by him.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Court holds that the Applicants cannot claim the benefit of the monetary threshold under the proviso, as the total laundering amount exceeds INR 1 crore.

- Conclusions: The Applicants cannot avail the exemption under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA.

Evidentiary Value of Accomplice Testimony

- Legal Framework: Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act allows the testimony of an accomplice, but it is considered weak evidence requiring corroboration.

- Court's Interpretation: The Court emphasizes that while accomplice testimony can be considered, it must be corroborated by independent evidence.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The prosecution relies heavily on the statements of an accomplice-turned-approver and unsigned Excel sheets, which lack direct linkage to the Applicants.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Court finds the evidence insufficiently conclusive to deny bail, given the lack of corroboration and direct evidence against the Applicants.

- Conclusions: The Court concludes that the Applicants have satisfied the prima facie conditions for bail under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA.

Apprehension of Tampering with Evidence

- Legal Framework: The prosecution must demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering to oppose bail.

- Court's Interpretation: The Court finds the prosecution's apprehension speculative and unsupported by credible evidence.

- Key Evidence and Findings: Allegations of threats by Applicant Jagdish Kumar Arora are uncorroborated and delayed, weakening their credibility.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Court imposes stringent conditions on the Applicants to mitigate any potential risk of interference with witnesses or evidence.

- Conclusions: The Court concludes that the Applicants should be granted bail with conditions to prevent misuse of liberty.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- The Court holds that prolonged incarceration without trial constitutes a valid ground for bail under Article 21 of the Constitution, even in cases governed by the PMLA.

- The Applicants cannot avail the benefit of the monetary threshold under the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, as the total proceeds of crime exceed INR 1 crore.

- The Court finds that accomplice testimony, without independent corroboration, is insufficient to deny bail.

- The Court imposes conditions on the Applicants to prevent any potential interference with the trial process.

- The Applicants are granted bail, subject to conditions ensuring their cooperation with the investigation and trial proceedings.

---