The court emphasized that bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act must balance the liberty of the accused with the necessity of a fair trial, allowing bail given the minor financial benefit attributed to the petitioner.

Judgment

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J. :-

PREDICATE OFFENCE:

1. The petitioner, who has been in custody since 08.09.2023, in the FIR captioned above, registered by the Enforcement Directorate, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] seeking bail.

2. Petitioner’s counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions, including the declaration of assets by the petitioner and family members, and is also voluntarily agreeable to the condition that till the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner shall keep only one mobile number, which is mentioned in AADHAR card, if any, and within fifteen days undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The petitioner contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

3. The counsel for the Enforcement Directorate [ED] opposes the bail and states that considering the allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to any bail. The ED’s counsel further contends that given the express bar of section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 [PMLA], this court can grant bail only when the accused meets the twin conditions, which he has not explained.

4. The facts of the case are that the Assistant Director of the Directorate of Enforcement [ED] filed a complaint based on predicate offence, which was FIR No.13 dated 02.11.2020 under Sections 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 7, 7-A of Prevention of Corruption Act against Varinder Pal Singh Dhoot and other persons. In the said FIR, allegations were that the revenue officials misused their official position and wrongly allocated shamlat land amongst the residents of village Seonk. Although shamlat land has to be distributed by the revenue authorities as per order dated 01.07.2016 and mutation no. 1761, some beneficiaries were allocated extra land, and some were given less. In some instances, the land was given to those who were not eligible. Varinder Pal Singh Dhoot is the kingpin, and the petitioner is one of the main accused. Allegations are of receipt of money from property dealers, and the accused allegedly received a massive amount of money by misusing the government machinery.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings.

6. It would be appropriate to refer to the complaint dated 16.06.2023 filed under Section 44 read with Section 45 of the PMLA for the commission of offence defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of PMLA by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zone, Punjab. In the complaint, 13 persons have been arraigned as accused, including the petitioner, Hartej Singh, who is cited as accused No.10. The complainant claims to be an authorized person to file the complaint via an authorization issued by the Government of India.

7. Just like a hidden portion of an ice burg, the roots of this complaint trace back to the predicate offence registered in FIR No. 13 dated 02.11.2020, under Sections 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 7, 7-A of Prevention of Corruption Act in Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Mohali against eleven persons, in which the petitioner was not initially named. Briefly, the main accused, who were the revenue officials, in connivance with property dealers and beneficiaries, not only allotted surplus land to some but also to those who were not even entitled, and in the process, some genuine beneficiaries were not allocated any land to which they were legally entitled. Based on such allegation, th