IMPORTANT POINT
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 trial.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 r/w Section 167(2) AND Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in CT Case No. 13/2022- ECR/KLZ0/41/2020 dated 25/09/20 under Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 09.06.2023 whereby the bail application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Special Judge primarily on the ground that the petitioner has failed to meet the threshold of Section 45 of PMLA. Learned trial court has inter alia held that the petitioner has actively assisted the co-accused to convert the tainted money into untainted money and connived in the laundering thereto.

3. The learned trial court has also inter alia held that the present case being a serious economic offence stands on a different footing and thus required to be seen with a different perspective. Learned trial court also inter alia rejected the contention of the petitioner that the share of the applicant/accused out of the alleged tainted money was only to the extent of Rs.27-28 lakhs and hence the applicant/accused was to be treated on a different footing in terms of the proviso clause appended to Section 45 of the PMLA. The ld. trial court was inter alia of the view that at this stage, the court cannot segregate the share of individual person and it has to be seen in a wholesome manner and therefore, the role of applicant/accused touches at least a figure of Rs. 48 Crores or so which is the amount allegedly attributed to the co-accused persons namely Anubrata Mondal and his daughter Sukanya Mondal.

4. Learned Special judge also rejected the plea taken by the petitioner that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to him. Aggrieved of this, the petitioner has filed the present bail application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with no criminal antecedents and permanent resident of Sriniketan Road, Bolpur, Birbhum, West Bengal-731204. It has been submitted that the petitioner is a qualified and practicing chartered accountant since November, 1999 and has maintained a clean practice record. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had been rendering his services to various companies, firms, proprietorship and partnership and individuals and has also been appointed as statutory auditor under Section 139 of the Companies Act of approximately 19 companies.

5. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner, in ordinary course of his professional activities, came in contact with Mr. Anubrata Mondal in late 2017 on being approached by the latter and subsequent thereto effective from financial year 2017-2018, started providing professional services of computation of income, filing of income tax returns for him and his family members including Ms. Sukanya Mondol. The petitioner received his professional fee against the discharge of his service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to the petitioner G.G. & Company, Chartered Accountants were rendering the same service upto financial year 2017-18. Learned counsel has submitted that in compliance of statutory obligations, petitioner, being an auditor is mandated under the law to audit and submit his report under Section 145 of Companies Act, 2013 and under Section 44AB of Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of tax audit. It has been submitted that these reports are required to be submitted within time as prescribed by law. Since corporate entity are mandated to hold annual general meetings upto 30th September for closing of financial year therefore auditors are required to submit their report on or before 30th September.

6. Learned counsel submits that if the petitioner is not released on bail, he would not be able to submit the mandated audit report which would result not only in losing the clients permanently but also will ruin his career. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not an accused in the predicat