Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 439—Bail—Consideration—Money laundering case—Court while determining the issue of bail cannot go into meticulous examination of facts nor it can examine probative value of witnesses—Twin conditions under Section 45 of the PML Act provide that bail can be granted only if (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application (ii) the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and (iii) the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail—Section 45 (ii) of the PML Act specifically provides that limitation on granting of bail in sub-section (i) is in addition to the limitations under the CrPC or any other law for the time being in force on grant of bail—Though there are limitations on the grant of bail, but it does not mean that in the cases under PMLA, the accused cannot be released on bail—In order to grant bail there has to be substantial probable cause for first believing that accused is not guilty of offence—Court in view of these twin conditions has to arrive at a conclusion that whether the facts and circumstances are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that accused is not guilty of offence—If accused has been able to demonstrate that there are broad probabilities that he is not guilty of the offence under HYPERLINK "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1283441/" Section 3 of PMLA, then he has a right to be released on bail.
[Paras 68 & 69]
Section 439—Bail—Offence of money laundering—Allegation against Minister of GNCT of Delhi and other co-accused—Money has been round tripped through shell companies and transactions have been carried out through Kolkata based entry operators—Share pattern of these companies are quite intricate and really needs to be examined thoroughly—Plea of petitioner/minister that he was not found in physical possession of any property needs to be rejected out-rightly as for the offence of money laundering the physical possession of proceeds of crime is not necessary—Contradictions in statements under Section 50 of PMLA cannot be examined at this stage and is a matter of trial—Petitioner/minister is an influential person and has a potential to tamper with evidence as indicated by his conduct during the custody—Condition under Section 439 CrPC are in addition to twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA—Petitioner/minister at this stage cannot be held to have cleared the twin conditions of PMLA or the triple test—Plea that disproportionate assets was only Rs.1.47 crore and PMLA has filed the complaint for Rs. 4.81 crores as proceeds of crime is not relevant as at this stage as the court has only to see whether offence has been committed and whether accused persons meet the twin conditions—Petitioners took a plea that companies were doing business but even a shred of document has not even been shown to reflect any business being undertaken by them—Broad probabilities indicate that these companies are controlled and managed by the petitioner/minister—Petitioners have failed to meet the twin conditions as provided under Section 45 of the PMLA as well as the conditions as laid down under Section 439 CrPC and are thus not entitled for bail—Bail applications rejected.
[Paras 70 to 81]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Section 50—Statement—Admissibility of—Statements made under Section 50 of PML Act have been held to be an admissible piece of evidence and it carry much more weight than a statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.
[Para 67]