Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 439—Bail—Delhi Excise Policy case—Petitioner was arrested for offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act—Allegations that petitioner was representing the south group and was part of conspiracy in framing of the new excise policy which was detrimental to the interest of the general public and was framed with an intention to grant undue advantage to certain individuals with a view to recoup the kickback and to gain further undue advantage—Petitioner was also allegedly involved in the process or activity connected to the proceeds of crime—Personal liberty is a sacrosanct right and pre-trial detention cannot be taken as a punitive measure—However such right has to be balanced with right of the society at large—Though the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act are admissible in evidence but their evidentiary value has to be weighed at the time of trial—Accused person acting in furtherance of the conspiracy circumvented the policy and got framed the policy in such a manner to continuously generate and channel illegal funds—Allegations are that deliberate loopholes were left to facilitate illegal and criminal activities—Investigation has revealed that 65% stake was given to South Group in Indo-Spirits to make it a mechanism for continuous generation and channelisation of proceeds of crime—Bail rejected. [Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 3, 45 & 50]
[Paras 32 to 53]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Section 45—Exercise of jurisdiction—Section 45 of the PML Act do not impose an absolute restraint on the grant of bail and court at this stage is to prima facie consider whether applying the standard of broad probabilities the material against applicant would result in conviction—At this stage the court is only required to examine the matter to find out whether accused was possessed of the requisite mens rea—Court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused had not committed the offence under the Act—Court at this stage is not required to weigh the evidence meticulously—Court is only required to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities—Court is not required to hold a mini trial at this stage and is required to examine the case on the basis of broad probabilities—While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 45 of PML Act, the court is required to take into consideration the limitations prescribed under Section 439 CrPC.
[Para 27]