The court emphasized that mere familial connections do not establish complicity in money laundering; direct involvement in proceeds of crime must be proven.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. The applicant is a sitting MLA from Mau Assembly Seat No.356 in State of Uttar Pradesh. He is stated to be a professional sport person and he has been arraigned as an accused in ECIR/ALSZO/27/2021 [Directorate of Enforcement through Assistant Director, Allahabad, Vs. M/s. Vikas Construction & others] for the commission of offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the PMLA)

2. The instant ECIR has been lodged based upon an investigation, initiated on the basis of three FIRs relating to predicate offences.

(i) In FIR No.129 of 2020 registered under sections 419, 420, 433, 434, 447, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 against M/s Vikas Constructions through its partner. In the instant case, the allegation is that the partners of M/s Vikas Construction had encroached on public property by falsification of records.

(ii) The other FIR is bearing No.185 of 2021 registered under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 467 IPC against the accused of the said FIR. In the said FIR, significantly, the present applicant has neither been named nor he has been chargesheeted. Nevertheless, the allegations in the said FIR is that one of the co-accused in the said FIR, namely Mukhtar Ansari had taken funds from the MLA fund to build a school though no school was built and the land is being used for agricultural purposes.

(iii) The third FIR is bearing No.236 of 2020 registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 against the applicant, his brother Umar Ansari and his father Mukhtar Ansari. In the said FIR, it has been stated that the accused alongwith the other two co-accused knowing that the property in question is owned and vested with the government but by using their influence usurped the said land, got a map prepared and constructed an illegal house thereby causing loss to the government. It is stated that in so far as the present case under Section 3 and 4 of the PMLA is concerned, the investigating agency has not alleged that any proceeds of crime have been generated from the predicate offence emanating from the FIR bearing No.236 of 2020.

3. Primarily, for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, the proceeds of crime, have been generated from the scheduled offence of FIR bearing No.129 of 2020.

4. The applicant was arrested by the investigating agency on 04.11.2022 in context with the instant ECIR. The statement of the applicant was recorded. A supplementary complaint was also filed by the investigating agency. The special court has taken cognizance. In the aforesaid backdrop, the present applicant filed his first bail application under Sections 44/45 of the PMLA.

5. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty and Mr. Pranjal Krishna, has primarily submitted that the instant proceedings under PMLA have been initiated by the investigating agency primarily from the FIR relating to the predicate offences bearing Case Crime No.129 of 2020 and Case Crime No. 236 of 2020. It has been submitted that the investigating agency alleged that it is the firm M/s. Vikas Construction which is allegedly directly involved in the offence of money laundering. It is the firm M/s Vikas Construction which has usurped the land upon which constructions of go-downs was made which in turn was given on rent to the Food Corporation of India and the rentals received in excess of 15 crores and odd has been show as proceeds of crime. It is also alleged that the firm M/s. Vikas Construction obtained a subsidy of 2.25 crores from NABARD which is also shown as proceeds of crime.

6. The investigating agency further alleged that several high value transactions were both credited and debited into and from the account of the applicant who could not explain the same. It has been tak