Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.45, 50 – Commission of offence under PMLA – Grant of bail – Twin conditions for bail u/s.45 – Respondent allegedly layered and laundered the proceeds of crime generated by his father-syndicate member involved in illegal sale of sand using hawala network and concealed the proceeds of crime and used the said proceeds – Complaint filed by the appellant-UOI against the respondent for offences u/ss.3/4 of the PMLA – PMLA court took cognizance of the alleged offences – Bail application by the respondent – Allowed by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: High Court in a very casual and cavalier manner, without considering the rigours of s. 45 granted bail to the respondent on absolutely extraneous and irrelevant considerations – No finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the respondent was not guilty of the alleged offence under the Act and was not likely to commit any offence while on bail – Non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of s.45 made the impugned order unsustainable and untenable in the eye of law – Art. 20(3) of the Constitution would not come into play in respect of the process of recording statement pursuant to summon issued u/s.50(2) – Furthermore, it cannot be said that the respondent has not been shown as an accused in the predicate offence – Merely because the prosecution complaint had been filed and cognizance was taken by the court that itself would not be the ground or consideration to release the respondent on bail, when the mandatory requirements of s.45 not complied with – Offence of money laundering is an aggravated form of crime world over and the offenders involved in the activity connected with the Proceeds of Crime are treated as a separate class from ordinary criminals – Any casual or cursory approach by the Courts while considering the bail application of the offender involved in the offence of money laundering and granting him bail by passing cryptic orders without considering the seriousness of the crime and without considering the rigours of s.45, cannot be vindicated – Impugned order being in defiance of s.45, is unsustainable and untenable, and as such set aside – Matter remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration – ss.3, 4 [Paras 12, 13, 17-22]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. 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.