Delhi High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case as Crime Value Falls Below ₹1 Crore Threshold Under Section 45

Court’s Decision:

The High Court of Delhi granted bail to the petitioner, concluding that the allegations primarily involved a land parcel worth ₹10.83 lakhs, which was allegedly transferred for a nominal amount. The court found that the petitioner’s case falls under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), thus exempting him from satisfying the twin conditions for bail. The court also took into account the petitioner’s medical condition, deeming him “sick and infirm,” and noted that no purpose would be served by his continued detention.

Facts:

The petitioner was arrested in connection with an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under the PMLA for his alleged involvement in laundering proceeds of crime related to the “Land for Job Scam.” The allegations were that land parcels in Patna were transferred to family members of a political figure in exchange for appointments to Group-D posts in the Indian Railways. One such land parcel was allegedly acquired by a company connected to the petitioner for ₹10.83 lakhs, which was later transferred to family members of the political figure.

The petitioner, a businessman, had been involved in real estate and distillery businesses, and his company had acquired various properties in Bihar. Although initially a director in the company, the petitioner transferred his shares and resigned from the directorship, allegedly distancing himself from the transactions in question. Despite being named as a witness in the CBI investigation related to the predicate offence, the petitioner was later implicated in the money laundering case.

Issues:

1. Whether the petitioner can be implicated under PMLA despite being a witness in the predicate offence.
2. Whether the petitioner’s role in the alleged money laundering, particularly in the transfer of land, warranted continued detention under Section 45 of PMLA.
3. Whether the petitioner qualifies for bail based on the proviso to Section 45, given the value of the land in question and his medical condition.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner argued that:

• He had fully cooperated with the investigation, joining it on multiple occasions.
• The land transaction in question was a legitimate business deal, and the value of the land parcel was properly recorded.
• His role in the transactions was limited, and he did not benefit from any proceeds of crime.
• His medical condition, including chronic ailments, should entitle him to bail under the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The Directorate of Enforcement argued that:

• The petitioner played an active role in laundering proceeds of crime by acquiring and transferring properties to the family members of the political figure involved in the “Land for Job Scam.”
• The petitioner’s companies were used to conceal the origin of the proceeds of crime, and his role in the conspiracy warranted his detention.
• The twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA should apply to the petitioner, and his medical condition did not justify bail.

Analysis of the Law:

The court analyzed the applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA, specifically the twin conditions that must be satisfied for granting bail in money laundering cases. However, the proviso to Section 45 exempts certain cases from these conditions, particularly when the value involved is less than ₹1 crore and in cases where the accused is “sick and infirm.” The court found that the petitioner’s case fell within this proviso, as the value of the land in question was ₹10.83 lakhs, far below the ₹1 crore threshold.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to several precedents, including Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Pavana Dibbur, which clarified that the offences under PMLA are independent of the predicate offences, and a person can be charged under PMLA even if not implicated in the predicate offence. It also considered cases involving medical bail and the principle of parity in bail cases, emphasizing the need to consider the specific role of each accused.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court reasoned that:

• The petitioner’s involvement in the alleged money laundering was limited to the acquisition and subsequent transfer of a land parcel worth ₹10.83 lakhs, which, even if undervalued, did not exceed the ₹1 crore threshold.
• The petitioner’s medical condition, which included chronic ailments, qualified him for bail under the proviso to Section 45.
• The petitioner had fully cooperated with the investigation and posed no flight risk or threat of tampering with evidence.
• The court also noted the lack of explanation from the respondent regarding the necessity of the petitioner’s arrest, despite his consistent cooperation with the investigation.

Conclusion:

The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to several conditions, including the surrender of his passport, regular reporting to the investigating officer, and a prohibition on leaving the country without the court’s permission. The court reiterated that the petitioner’s bail did not preclude the continuation of the trial and emphasized that the allegations against him would be examined in detail during the trial.