2025 (7) TMI 156 - HC - Money Laundering

Bail granted in money laundering case despite prima facie evidence under sections 22-23 PMLA 2002 citing prolonged detention

Calcutta HC granted bail to petitioner in money laundering case involving illegal collection of funds for teaching/non-teaching staff appointments and ... Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - predicate offence - collection of huge money from various candidates for their illegal selection to the post of teaching and non-teaching staff under the West Bengal Government and also extorttion of an amount of Rs. 2.4 crores @ Rs. 20,000 per student from 1200 candidates for facilitating them to fight Court cases for appointment as teachers - right to speedy trial - HELD THAT:- Since the present complaint is the fallout of the predicate offence, prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence cannot be ruled out. The extent of his involvement is required to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage of the proceedings upon recording evidence of the witnesses. In view of the incriminating material which transpired against the petitioner during investigation and the observation made by the Hon’ble Division Bench as stated earlier, prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the offence cannot be ruled out. The material collected against the petitioner satisfies the presumption under section 22 and 23 of the Act of 2002 and it cannot be held at this stage that the petitioner is “not guilty of such offence”. In the judgment in Manish Sisodia [2024 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the right to bail in cases of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period should be read into section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and section 45 of the 2002 Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial and in such a case Article 21 applies irrespective of the seriousness of the crime. The right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is overarching and sacrosanct. In view of the circumstances as stated hereinabove and the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution as well as prolonged incarceration, this Court is inclined to release the petitioner on bail subject to stringent conditions to secure his attendance as well as deter him from influencing the witnesses of the case. The application for bail allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this judgment include:- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with a co-accused who was granted bail.- Whether the petitioner's prolonged detention without trial justifies grant of bail under constitutional and statutory provisions.- Whether the petitioner's prima facie involvement in offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, is established sufficiently to deny bail.- The applicability and interplay of provisions under the PMLA, the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (specifically section 479), and constitutional protections under Article 21 regarding speedy trial and personal liberty.- The relevance of the nature and gravity of economic offences, especially corruption-related offences, in the consideration of bail applications.- The weight to be accorded to the stage of investigation and trial, including whether investigation is complete and whether trial delay is attributable to the accused.- The conditions and safeguards that may be imposed on bail to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Entitlement to Bail on Parity with Co-accusedThe petitioner sought bail on the ground of parity with a co-accused, Manik Bhattacharyya, who was granted bail by this Court. The petitioner argued that since the co-accused was enlarged on bail, he too should be granted similar relief.The Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed this, highlighting differences in the period of detention and the stage of investigation. The Court noted that Manik Bhattacharyya had been in custody for approximately 23.4 months before bail was granted, whereas the petitioner had been in custody for about 20 months. The Court found that parity was not automatic and had to be considered along with other factors such as the nature of involvement and stage of investigation.The Court further observed that the petitioner was implicated later in the investigation and that the investigation against him was complete, unlike the co-accused. Thus, parity was not a sufficient ground alone for bail.Issue 2: Prima Facie Involvement and Gravity of OffenceThe petitioner was charged under sections 7, 7A, and 8 of the PMLA, and sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC, related to corruption and conspiracy in illegal recruitment and money laundering.The Court examined the detailed allegations, including the petitioner's role in facilitating illegal appointments of candidates in the TET-2014 and other recruitment processes, collecting large sums of money (in crores), and maintaining nexus with other accused.Evidence included statements recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, bank statements showing large fund transfers, seizure of incriminating documents and electronic devices, and a confrontational statement admitting receipt of Rs. 3.82 crores and Rs. 16 crores for illegal appointments.The Court relied on the Division Bench's earlier observations that the petitioner played a pivotal role in a 'deep and pervasive corruption' scheme affecting constitutional duties related to education. The Court held that prima facie involvement was established and the presumption under sections 22 and 23 of the PMLA applied, precluding a finding of 'not guilty' at this stage.Issue 3: Prolonged Detention and Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21The petitioner had been in custody for about 22 months without trial, with the last custodial interrogation occurring nearly 20 months prior. The Court noted the case involved complex evidence with approximately 300 witnesses and thousands of pages of documents, making speedy trial unlikely in the near future.The Court emphasized the constitutional protection under Article 21 for speedy trial and personal liberty, referencing Supreme Court precedents that prolonged incarceration without trial cannot be permitted regardless of the offence's seriousness. The Court referred to the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.The newly enacted section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was considered, which mandates release on bond if a first-time offender has undergone detention for one-third of the maximum imprisonment term. The petitioner was a first-time offender and had nearly completed one-third of the maximum sentence applicable under the PMLA.The Court acknowledged that while the offence was grave, the delay in trial was not attributable solely to the petitioner, and the investigation was complete, reducing the risk of evidence tampering.Issue 4: Application of Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe Court applied the factors laid down by the Supreme Court in Prosanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, including the nature and gravity of the offence, prima facie involvement, likelihood of absconding, and impact on witnesses.It also considered the special nature of economic offences, which are treated with greater seriousness due to their impact on the national economy and public trust, citing precedents such as Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal.However, the Court balanced these considerations against the constitutional mandate under Article 21 and the statutory provisions of the 2023 Act, which favor bail in cases of prolonged detention.Competing arguments about the petitioner's role and the strength of evidence were acknowledged, but the Court refrained from delving into merits, emphasizing that such issues are to be adjudicated during trial.Issue 5: Conditions for Grant of BailGiven the gravity of the offence and the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the Court imposed stringent bail conditions, including:Furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with adequate sureties, half of whom must be local.Surrender of passport to the trial Court.Restriction on leaving the trial Court's jurisdiction without permission.Mandatory appearance on all hearing dates.Prohibition on tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.Prohibition on engaging in any criminal activity or contacting witnesses.Requirement to provide and maintain a mobile number with the trial Court.The Court clarified that violation of these conditions would empower the trial Court to cancel bail without further reference.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that despite the grave nature of the offences and prima facie involvement of the petitioner, the constitutional right to speedy trial and personal liberty under Article 21, read together with section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, justified grant of bail due to prolonged detention without trial.The Court stated verbatim:'The right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional Court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-under trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed.'It reaffirmed the principle:'Bail is the rule and jail is exception.'The Court emphasized that economic offences, while serious and affecting public trust and national economy, must still be balanced against fundamental rights.On the issue of bail conditions, the Court held:'Accordingly, the application for bail... is allowed... subject to stringent conditions to secure his attendance as well as deter him from influencing the witnesses of the case.'The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the trial Court to independently adjudicate the matter.In conclusion, the Court granted bail to the petitioner on furnishing bond and subject to strict conditions, recognizing the constitutional imperative of preventing prolonged pre-trial incarceration while safeguarding the integrity of the investigation and trial process.