IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial, allowing bail under the PMLA due to prolonged incarceration and lack of evidence against the applicant.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. By way of present bail application, the petitioner/applicant seeks regular bail in the proceedings emanating out of ECIR/STF/02/2022 dated 03.02.2022. The said ECIR was registered on the basis of the FIR No. 0807/2021 dated 05.12.2021 registered under Sections 417/120B/420 IPC at PS Kalkaji, Delhi. Another FIR No. 190/2021 was also later included by the respondent in the prosecution complaint.

2. It has been alleged in the prosecution complaint that Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd, China (formerly BBK Communication Co. Ltd.) (hereinafter, referred to as “Vivo China”) along with others conspired to fraudulently set up Vivo group of companies in India without revealing their true beneficial ownership and carried out mis-declarations before government bodies. It is alleged that Vivo Mobile India Private Limited (hereinafter, referred to as “Vivo India”) and its State Distribution Companies (SDCs) concealed their Chinese ownership. While it was projected that Vivo India is a subsidiary of a Hong Kong based company viz. Multi Accord Limited, however investigation has established that it was under the ultimate control of Vivo China.

It is also alleged that Vivo India had remitted funds outside India to the tune of Rs. 70,837 Crores out of the total funds i.e. Rs. 71,625 Crores accumulated by them from sale of goods in the period from January 2015 to March 2021. Thus, Vivo China, through Vivo India has created an elaborate network of companies under a corporate veil. All the SDCs are controlled by Vivo India which in turn is controlled by Vivo China. By creating the said meshed and Pan-India structure, Vivo India has acquired Proceeds of Crime to the tune of Rs. 2,02,41,17,72,292.89/-. The proceeds so acquired were then siphoned off by Vivo India to Overseas trading companies many of which are in control of Vivo China.

Some of the other illegalities which are alleged to have been committed include use of forged driving licenses for opening bank accounts of various SDC’s of Vivo India as well as Grand Prospect International Communication Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, referred to as “GPICPL”) Himachal Pradesh for obtaining Director Identification Number by Chinese nationals. Illegalities in visa obtainment by various entities have also been alleged.

3. The present applicant is the Managing Director of M/s Lava International Ltd., (hereinafter, referred to as “Lava”) engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of mobile phones under the brand “Lava” and a competitor of Vivo. He has been arrayed as accused No. 20 in the prosecution complaint. It has been alleged that the applicant had invited Chinese Nationals from Vivo China in 2013-2014 with the intent of enabling them to set up a web of companies in India by concealing true ownership. He is also alleged to have provided them logistical and ground support and helped them get a foothold in India by circumventing FDI norms. He is also alleged to have transferred around Rs. 3.17 Crores in total, including Rs. 2.62 Crores from Lava and Rs. 55 lacs from his personal account to one Labquest Engineering Pvt. Ltd.( hereinafter, referred to as “Labquest”) to help Vivo China set up a number of companies without disclosing that it is the controller of those entities.

4. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely roped in the present case and that there is no material which has been produced by the respondent to indicate the complicity of the applicant in any offence. It is submitted that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail because, firstly, he satisfies the twin conditions stipulated under Section 45 of PMLA and secondly, because his right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution of India is being affected by the slow pace of trial which is not likely to conclude in the foreseeable future.

5. Contending that the twin conditions in the present cas