At the bail stage, the court is required to consider the prima facie case and is not allowed to meticulously examine the evidence. The court must maintain a delicate balance between judgment of acquittal and conviction and grant bail based on broad probabilities.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. The Present application has been filed seeking grant of bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) r/w Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code 1973, (Cr.P.C.) in FIR No. ECIR/DLZO-II/54 of 2021 aggrieved of the order dated 28.10.2022 whereby the learned Special Judge, dismissed the bail application of the petitioner.

2. Facts in brief, are that on the basis of the complainant, Aditi Shivinder Singh FIR no.208/2021 dated 07.08.2021 was registered at P.S: Special Cell, Delhi Police against unknown accused persons for different offences under Sections 170/384/386/388/419/420 IPC r/w 120-B IPC and under Section 66 (D) of IT Act.

3. As per the status report the prosecution has alleged, that through a newspaper article, it was revealed that a contractual nursing staff was caught in Tihar Jail for helping Sukesh Chandrashekhar in communicating/passing on certain information out of Tihar Jail, as per his instructions. On this, a communication was sent to DG Prisons seeking information regarding the said nursing staff. On the said communication, it was intimated that one Anurag Kumar was working as Nursing Orderly - Contractual Staff at Central Jail No. 03 and his mobile phone was provided to the department for further investigation. Thereafter, the Statement of Anurag Kumar u/s 50 PMLA was recorded wherein he revealed that the main accused Sukesh Chandrashekhar induced him to send pictures of his handwritten messages written by him (i.e. Sukesh Chandrashekhar) which were further sent to the petitioner for which he was promised to be paid around Rs.10,000 to Rs.15,000 per day. The said messages were sent by Anurag Kumar to the petitioner on her mobile phone.

4. The ED has further alleged that the petitioner was a resident of Chennai and had been working as a Salon Sales Manager in Nail Artistry Salon, Chennai Branch, which is owned by co-accused Leena Maria Paul, wife of main accused Sukesh Chandrashekhar. During the investigation, the search was conducted u/s 17 PMLA at the residence of the petitioner, during which certain documents/bills/invoices, 06 mobile phones of her and associates and some luxurious articles were recovered. It was further, revealed by the Petitioner herein that various luxurious articles were purchased for and on behalf of accused Sukesh Chandrashekhar and co-accused Leena Maria Paul which were delivered inside the premises of Tihar Jail by way of mulakat by the Petitioner. The mobile phones were also purchased and given to jail officials at predetermined locations. Subsequently, summons were issued to the Petitioner on 07.07.2022 to record her statement under section 50, PMLA. However, during her statement, the Petitioner deliberately did not disclose the relevant information and made false statement. Thus, the petitioner was arrested on 08.07.2022.

5. It was further alleged that the extraction of data from the 06 mobile phones recovered from petitioner revealed that Petitioner was assisting accused Sukesh Chandrashekhar while he was lodged in Tihar Jail and was also providing updates on works/instructions allotted or given to her by Sukesh. The Petitioner was also making payments to various individuals including his lawyers/jail staff/relatives of jail inmates/Sukesh's mother as per the instructions of accused Sukesh Chandrashekhar. The Petitioner also assisted accused Sukesh Chandrashekhar in the illegal delivery of various items inside the premises of Tihar Jail in order to help and enable him to acquire undue benefits and continue with his criminal activities within Tihar Jail. It has further been alleged that on 08.07.2022, a search was conducted at Nail Artistry Salon, at Chennai where the Petitioner worked as Sales Manager wherein one Manoj Kumar, Salon Sales Manager at the said salon was present and two mobile phones were seized from his possession by the ED. Later on, said Manoj Kumar tendered one more mobile phone which w