Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.50 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.25 – Appellant was in judicial custody from 25.08.2022 in connection with another ECIR and while he was in aforesaid judicial custody his arrest was shown in the present ECIR on 11.08.2023 – Statement of the appellant recorded while he was in custody, if admissible u/s.50: Held: No – When an accused is in custody under PMLA irrespective of the case for which he is under custody, any statement under Section 50 PMLA to the same Investigating Agency is inadmissible against the maker – The person in custody pursuant to the proceeding investigated by the same Investigating Agency is not a person operating with a free mind and it will be extremely unsafe to render such statements admissible against the maker – Statement of the appellant if to be considered as incriminating against him, will be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act since he gave the statement whilst in judicial custody, pursuant to another proceeding instituted by the same Investigating Agency – As the appellant was taken from the judicial custody to record the statement, it will be a travesty of justice to render the statement admissible against him – Since the words ‘procedure established by law’ occurring in Article 21 has to be a reasonable and valid procedure – The statement of the appellant under Section 50 cannot be relied upon against him in ECIR No. 5 of 2023 even though the appellant was at that point in custody in ECIR No. 4 of 2022 – Further, statements of the co-accused will not have the character of substantive evidence and the law laid down under Section 30 of the Evidence Act by this Court while dealing with the confession of the co-accused will apply – Statement of the co-accused does not prima facie indicate anything about the role of the appellant in the forgery of sale deed and other documents or being involved in the offence of money laundering – Appellant satisfied the twin conditions under Section 45 – There are reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is not guilty of the offence of money laundering as alleged under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA and the appellant is not likely to commit any offence, if enlarged on bail – Impugned order quashed and set aside – Appellant granted bail. [Paras 27, 32, 34, 37, 45, 49] Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 – Twin conditions under, discussed – Scope of enquiry – “reasonable grounds for believing” – Meaning:
Held: Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail in PMLA need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the Court based on the available material available on record is required – The words used in Section 45 are “reasonable grounds for believing” which means that the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 13]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Bail application – Counter/response in the original Court – Significance: Held: In cases where the Public Prosecutor takes a considered decision to oppose the bail application, the counter affidavit of the Investigating Agency should make out a cogent case specifically crystallizing albeit briefly the material sought to be relied upon to establish prima facie the three foundational facts in the given case to help the Court at the bail application stage to arrive at a conclusion within the framework laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case – It is only thereafter the presumption under Section 24 would arise and the burden would shift on the accused. [Para 15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.