2025 (12) TMI 1670 - HC - Money Laundering

Money-laundering case over 2008-2013 transactions and delayed proceedings: Section 45 twin-conditions weighed, regular bail granted

In a PMLA prosecution arising from scheduled offences, the Del HC considered whether continued judicial custody was warranted and whether the Section 45 ... Money Laundering - seeking grant of regular bail - scheduled offences - applicant is a women accused - applicability of rigours of the twin conditions contained in Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA or not - creating undue influence by misrepresenting herself and allegedly duping various persons by inducing them to part with money - HELD THAT:- The applicant has been in judicial custody for more than four months, the allegations relate to transactions of the years 2008-2013, the FIR for scheduled offence was registered only in 2016, the ECIR was recorded only in the year 2025, the main accused has been declared a proclaimed offender and remains unarrested in the present case, the applicant was neither charge-sheeted for the predicate offence by the police nor summoned in the private complaint case, a substantial part of the alleged amount had already been returned to the complainant by the main accused, the investigation qua applicant has been completed by the DoE and the prosecution complaint has already been filed, and the fact that the trial will take time to conclude as 24 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and the fact that trial in the predicate offence is not proceeding since the only accused, i.e. Amit Gupta is absconding — this Court finds no ground to further keep the applicant in judicial custody. This Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹2,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, at least one of whom will be a family member, subject to satisfaction of the learned Special Court/Successor Court/Link Court, on the fulfiment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether, in the case of a woman accused, the embargo of the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA applies, or whether bail is to be assessed on general bail principles under the first proviso to Section 45(1). (ii) Whether, on a prima facie appraisal of the material and the circumstances highlighted in the record, continued judicial custody of the applicant was warranted, or regular bail ought to be granted in the PMLA case. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Applicability of Section 45 PMLA twin conditions to a woman accused Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court examined Section 45 of the PMLA, specifically the first proviso to Section 45(1) in relation to clause (ii) (the 'twin conditions'). The Court also applied the principle stated in a Supreme Court decision referred to in the judgment, which the Court treated as settling the position for women accused. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that, for a woman accused, the first proviso operates as an exception to the twin conditions in Section 45(1)(ii). The Court held that the statutory embargo can be relaxed for such an accused, and that bail may be considered on general principles, while still keeping in view the nature and gravity of allegations. Conclusion: The Court conclusively held that, since the applicant is a woman, the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) need not be satisfied, and the bail request falls to be assessed on general bail considerations, with due regard to seriousness of allegations. Issue (ii): Whether the applicant made out a case for regular bail on the Court's prima facie assessment Interpretation and reasoning: The Court evaluated the prosecution's core allegation that proceeds of crime from the scheduled offence were routed to the applicant and used for acquisition/holding of immovable properties, and that the applicant thereby participated in acquisition, possession, use and projection of proceeds of crime as untainted. At the same time, the Court weighed multiple record-based circumstances cumulatively: (a) the applicant was not charge-sheeted in the predicate case and the Magistrate, in the private complaint proceedings, declined to take cognizance against her, recording no offence made out even for summoning; (b) the alleged underlying transactions were old (2008-2013), with the scheduled-offence FIR in 2016 and the ECIR only in 2025; (c) a substantial amount (about Rs. 2.7 crores) had been returned to the complainant, so the case could not, at that stage, be treated as involving projection/concealment of the entire alleged amount; (d) the principal accused in the predicate matter had been declared a proclaimed offender yet remained unarrested, and the Court noted absence of effective steps to arrest him despite his appearance through counsel in the PMLA proceedings; (e) the applicant had remained in custody for over four months; (f) the investigation qua the applicant was complete and the prosecution complaint had been filed; and (g) trial would take time since 24 witnesses were cited and the predicate trial was not progressing due to the absconding of the only accused there. Conclusion: On the cumulative assessment, the Court found 'no ground' to further keep the applicant in judicial custody and granted regular bail, subject to conditions including furnishing bonds/sureties, surrender of passport, travel restriction, keeping contact number active, providing residence details, cooperation with investigation, non-tampering with evidence/non-influencing witnesses, and regular attendance before the trial court.