Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Satyendar Kumar Jain - Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1638 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6561 OF 2023)
With
Ankush Jain - Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1639 OF 2024(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7129 of 2023)
And
Vaibhav Jain - Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1640 OF 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7130 OF 2023
Decided on : 18-03-2024
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 45 and 50 read with Section 2(1)(u) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail application – Acquisition of disproportionate assets and laundering of tainted cash amounts through shell companies – In all or whole of crime property linked to scheduled offence need not be regarded as proceeds of crime, but all properties qualifying definition of “Proceeds of Crime” under Section 2(1)(u) will necessarily be crime properties – Statements of witnesses recorded by ED are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50 – Such statements may make out a formidable case about involvement of accused in commission of offence of money laundering – Though it is true that a company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders and directors, lifting of corporate veil is permissible when such corporate structures have been used for committing fraud or economic offences or have been used as a facade or a sham for carrying out illegal activities – Appellants could not be permitted to take advantage of their own wrongdoing of filing false declarations to mislead Income Tax authorities and now to submit in present proceedings under PMLA that declarations under IDS were void – Appellants have miserably failed to satisfy Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are not guilty of alleged offences – On the contrary, there is sufficient material collected by respondent-ED to show that they are prima facie guilty of alleged offences – From totality of facts and circumstances of case, it is not possible to hold that appellants had complied with twin mandatory conditions laid down in Section 45 of PMLA – Judgment of High Court upheld. (Paras 21, 22, 28, 30 and 32)
Facts of the case:
All three appeals arise out of common impugned Judgment and order dated 06.04.2023 passed by High Court of Delhi whereby High Court has rejected all bail applications of appellants.
Findings of Court:
Appellants were released on bail for temporary period after their arrest and the appellant was released on bail on medical ground on 30.05.2022, which has continued till this day. He shall now surrender forthwith before the Special Court. Right to speedy trial and access to justice is a valuable right enshrined in the Constitution of India, and provisions of Section 436A of the Cr.P.C. would apply with full force to the cases of money laundering falling under Section 3 of PMLA, subject to the Provisos and the Explanation contained therein.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. All the three appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in the Bail Application Nos. 3590 of 2022, 3705 of 2022 and 3710 of 2022, whereby the High Court has rejected all the bail applications of the appellants.
3. Earlier the Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) -23 (MPs/MLAs cases) vide the separate detailed orders dated 17.11.2022 had rejected the bail applications of all the appellants – accused.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. An FIR being case No.RC-AC-1-2017-A-0005 dated 24th August, 2017 came to be registered at the CBI AC-1, New Delhi against Shri Satyendar Kumar Jain, Minister in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Others, for the offences under Section 109 IPC and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 at the instance of the Dy. Superintendent of Police, CBI who had conducted a Preliminary Enquiry, being PE AC-1-2017-A0003 dated 10.04.2017 registered at the said office of the CBI. After the investigation, a Charge-sheet came to be filed by the CBI in respect of the said FIR on 03.12.2018 in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi against the six accused viz. Sh. Satyendar Kumar Jain, Smt. Poonam Jain, Sh. Ajit Prasad Jain, Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain, Sh. Vaibhav Jain and Sh. Ankush Jain.
5. Since Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act in the said FIR dated 24th August, 2017 were scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “PMLA”) and since it was alleged inter alia that Sh. Satyendar Jain with the help of his family members and other persons had acquired disproportionate assets during the period from 14.02.2015 to 31.05.2017, while he was functioning as Minister of Govt. NCT of Delhi, and had laundered tainted cash amounts through Kolkata based shell companies, the Directorate of Enforcement had registered an ECIR bearing No. ECIR/HQ/14/2017 dated 30th August, 2017 against Satyendar Jain, Vaibhav Jain, Ankush Jain and others for investigation into the commission of the offence of Money laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. On the completion of the said investigation, the Prosecution Complaint came to be filed on 27.07.2022 by the Directorate of Enforcement in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi, against the accused Sh. Satyendar Jain and others with a prayer to take cognizance of the offences of money laundering under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of PMLA. The said Prosecution Complaint being CC No.23/2022 is now pending at the stage of framing of charge against the appellants – accused.
6. During the course of investigation, the appellant-Satyendar Kumar Jain was arrested on 30th May, 2022 and the appellants-Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain were arrested on 30th June, 2022. The gist of the allegations made against the appellants-accused as mentioned in the said Prosecution Complaint is as under: -
| S.No. | Name of the Accused | Role in the case (in brief) |
| 1. | Satyendar Kumar Jain | Based on the discussion and material herein above, it is clear that Satyendar Kumar Jain hatched the criminal conspiracy and conceptualized the idea of accommodation entries against cash. To get his idea implemented, he recommended appointing his old friend Sh. Jagdish Prasad Mohta, Chartered Accountant as the auditor of Akinchan Developers Pvt. Ltd., Paryas Infosolution Pvt. Ltd., Indo Metalimpex Pvt. Ltd. and Mangalayatan Projects Pvt. Ltd. He (Satyendar Kumar Jain) first approached Sh. Jagdish Prasad Mohta for taking accommodation entries in lieu of cash in his aforesaid four companies. Shri Mohta arranged a meeting between Satyendar Kumar Jain and Rajendra Bansal, Kolkata based accommodation entry provider. In this meeting all the nitty gritties of |
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 45 and 50 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail application – Acquisition of disproportionate assets and laundering of tainted cash ....
The court emphasized that in economic offences under the PMLA, bail is not granted unless the accused proves they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA must be satisfied before granting bail in a money laundering case, and the accused's involvement ....
The court emphasized that mere familial connections do not establish complicity in money laundering; direct involvement in proceeds of crime must be proven.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of broad probabilities and prima facie determination in granting bail under PMLA, without converting the bail stage into a mini tri....
The seriousness of the offence and the accused's conduct during investigations are crucial factors in determining the grant of bail in money laundering cases.
The court granted bail under the PMLA, emphasizing the lack of sufficient evidence linking the applicant to money laundering, and highlighting the necessity for a predicate offence to substantiate ch....
Anticipatory bail may be granted under PMLA, considering the health challenges of the accused and lack of direct proceeds of crime linked to them.
The judgment emphasizes the need for substantial probable causes to believe the accused is not guilty, the requirement to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption of innocence u....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
