2025 (9) TMI 1277 - HC - Money Laundering

Bail granted in PMLA money-laundering case after ~2½ years custody; Rs 100,000 bond plus two sureties required

Pradip Bagchi Versus Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement.

The HC allowed bail in a PMLA money-laundering case, noting the accused's ~2½ years' incarceration and that trial is unlikely to conclude soon, and ... Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offences - submission of forged papers - satisfaction of twin conditions of Section 45(1)(i)(ii) of PML Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- It is evident from Section 3 of the Act, 2002 that the “offence of money-laundering” means whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. The explanation is also there as under sub-section (2) thereof which is for the purpose of removal of doubts, a clarification has been inserted that the expression 'Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable' shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and accordingly the officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfilment of conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this section. It needs to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr., [2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT] has passed the order that if the investigation has been completed and if there is full cooperation of the accused persons, there may not be any arrest. The Hon’ble Apex Court categorised the offences in different group for purpose of bail. This Court is of the view that since the trial with respect to the present petitioner is not likely to be completed in near future, as such, taking into consideration the incarceration of the present petitioner of about 2½ years and also that the co-accused person, namely, Dilip Kumar Ghosh has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in B.A. No. 7233 of 2023 vide order dated 28.11.2023 [2023 (11) TMI 1228 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] as also another co-accused person, namely, Amit Kumar Agarwal has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AMIT KUMAR AGARWAL VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2025 (8) TMI 1702 - SC ORDER], is of the view that there is no reason to take distinct view with respect to the case of the present petitioner. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge, PMLA at Ranchi, in connection with ECIR Case No. 01 of 2023 [arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022] with the condition that the petitioner will not tamper with any evidence and/or will not threaten any of the witnesses as also the petitioner shall appear before the Learned Special Judge on each and every date unless exempted by the learned Trail court on being satisfied with the causes shown by the petitioner in this regard. The present bail application stands allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether the petitioner accused of an offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is entitled to regular bail despite opposition by the Enforcement Directorate, having regard to Section 45 of the PMLA and the materials on record. 1.2 Whether the allegations and materials as recorded in the ECIR/prosecution complaint disclose essential ingredients of the offence of money-laundering vis-à-vis the petitioner, in particular whether the value of the immovable property can be treated as 'proceeds of crime' attributable to the petitioner. 1.3 Whether parity with co-accused who have been released on bail, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration, justify grant of bail to the petitioner despite the special non-bailable provisions of the PMLA. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Entitlement to bail under PMLA (Section 45): legal framework Legal framework: Section 45(1)(i)&(ii) PMLA provides that no person accused under the Act shall be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor is given an opportunity to oppose and, if opposed, the court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail; subsection (2) reinforces non-bailability and cognizability notwithstanding CrPC. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on categorical guidance in Satender Kumar Antil (as reproduced) which classifies offences and prescribes bail-related approaches; and on P. Chidambaram for general principles to be considered when exercising bail jurisdiction (nature of accusation, materials, risk of tampering, likelihood of absconding, character, larger public interest). Interpretation and reasoning: The Court applied Section 45 in conjunction with the cited precedents, acknowledging the added stringency in PMLA but observing that bail jurisdiction must still be exercised considering facts and materials; the court examined whether the statutory mandatory satisfaction under Section 45(1)(ii) can be reached on the record before it. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 45 imposes a two-fold requirement (public prosecutor heard; court satisfied about non-guilt and non-risk) and this threshold governs bail under PMLA. Obiter - references to Satender Kumar Antil's categorisation as procedural guidance in bail determination under different categories of offences. Conclusion: The Court treated Section 45 as constraining but not an absolute bar to bail; the statutory test must be applied to facts (see conclusion on Issue 3 below regarding grant of bail). Issue 2 - Sufficiency of materials to attribute 'proceeds of crime'/essential ingredients of money-laundering against the petitioner Legal framework: Definitions in PMLA: 'proceeds of crime' (Section 2(1)(u)), 'property' (Section 2(1)(v)), and the substantive offence (Section 3) involving processes/activities connected with proceeds of crime including concealment, possession, acquisition or use, or projecting it as untainted. Precedent treatment: The Court referenced statutory definitions and the need to assess whether the prosecution materials satisfy the essential ingredients of money-laundering; it considered the prosecution complaint, statements under Section 50, seizure list and alleged manipulation of documents. Interpretation and reasoning: The prosecution alleges that forged documents and altered public records created a fictitious owner, leading to a sale where consideration was mis-represented; material includes recovery of cheque leafs, bank passbooks, statements, sale deeds and an alleged admission (statement under Section 50) that the petitioner executed forged deeds and received money (one cheque of Rs.25 lakhs credited). The Court noted prosecution's case that the claimed receipt of full consideration was a deliberate device to cloak acquisition of proceeds of crime in untainted property. However, the Court also noted the defence contentions that the petitioner did not have title and that only Rs.25 lakhs was actually received, challenging characterization of the full property value as proceeds of crime attributable to the petitioner. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A mere allegation that a property's full value is proceeds of crime is not conclusive without linking the accused's receipt/control of such proceeds; Obiter - observations on evidentiary nuances (e.g., difference between nominal consideration shown in deed and actual amounts paid) for trial appreciation. Conclusion: The Court treated the factual contest on whether the essential ingredients of money-laundering as against the petitioner are made out as a matter for trial; the prima facie materials did not persuade the Court to deny bail under Section 45 given other considerations (see Issue 3). Issue 3 - Parity, duration of incarceration and prospects of trial as considerations for bail (application of precedents) Legal framework: Principles in P. Chidambaram and Satender Kumar Antil guide consideration of nature of accusation, evidence, likelihood of tampering/absconding, character, public interest, and categorisation of offences for bail treatment; prolonged incarceration and trial duration weigh in favour of bail where appropriate. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on decisions granting bail to co-accused and observed the Supreme Court's grant of bail to another co-accused inter alia on ground of lengthy trial and 2½ years' incarceration; the Satender Kumar Antil framework for categorising offences and approach to bail in special-act cases (Category C including PMLA) was treated as guiding but not determinative. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that two co-accused were already granted bail (one by a co-ordinate High Court Bench, another by the Supreme Court), and that the petitioner had been incarcerated for about 2½ years with trial unlikely to conclude in the near future. Applying the discretionary principles in P. Chidambaram and the categorisation in Satender Kumar Antil, the Court found no reason to adopt a distinct view for the petitioner. The Court imposed conditions to mitigate risks of tampering or witness intimidation (bond, sureties, undertaking to not tamper/threaten, attendance at trial). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Parity with co-accused and prolonged pre-trial incarceration are valid considerations that can justify bail even in PMLA matters, subject to statutory conditions and adequate protective conditions by the court; Obiter - detailed commentary on co-accused orders and their contents are observational aids rather than binding on merits of prosecution's case. Conclusion: Weighing parity, prolonged custody, and absence of compelling unique factors to deny bail (e.g., strong risk of tampering/absconding shown), the Court granted bail subject to conditions (bond and sureties; prohibition on tampering/threatening witnesses; mandatory appearance at trial). Cross-references and final observations CR-1 Cross-reference to Issue 1: The application of Section 45's satisfaction test was undertaken but resolved in petitioner's favour because the Court, after considering materials and precedents, was satisfied that the statutory threshold did not preclude bail in the present factual matrix. CR-2 Cross-reference to Issue 2: The Court emphasised that contested factual and evidentiary issues (forgery, title, quantum of actual consideration, attribution of proceeds) are matters for trial; prima facie material did not override parity and incarceration considerations. Final conclusion (ratio): Bail was allowed, subject to conditions, on the basis that (i) statutory requirements of Section 45 were considered and not found to mandate continued custody on the present record; (ii) parity with co-accused and prolonged pre-trial incarceration weighed in favour of release; and (iii) protective conditions were imposed to safeguard the prosecution case and prevent tampering or intimidation.