Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 16054
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
AMIT KATYAL – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTORATE OFENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OFINDIA – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-2024/2024
The court held that the absence of evidence linking the petitioner to the predicate offence and his cooperation with the investigation justified the grant of bail under the PMLA.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 45 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Application for regular bail - Petitioner arrested on allegations of money laundering related to a scheduled offence - No evidence of petitioner's involvement in predicate offence found - Petitioner cooperated with investigations and was cited as a protected witness - Allegations against petitioner insufficient to establish mens rea for money laundering - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1, 4, 10, 20, 121)
(B) Bail under PMLA - The twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 must be satisfied for bail, but exceptions exist for cases involving lesser amounts or where the accused is not a flight risk. (Paras 46, 87, 116)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with an ECIR alleging money laundering linked to a land scam involving high-profile individuals. The petitioner claimed no involvement in the predicate offence and cooperated with the investigation. (Paras 2, 4, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not been implicated in the predicate offence and had cooperated with the investigation. The allegations did not establish the necessary mens rea for money laundering. (Paras 20, 121)
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner had sufficient grounds for bail under the PMLA and whether the allegations constituted a standalone offence of money laundering. (Paras 46, 87)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s lack of involvement in the predicate offence and cooperation with the investigation warranted bail, despite the serious nature of the allegations. (Paras 20, 121)
Result: Bail granted subject to conditions.
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The present Application under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “PMLA, 2002”) read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “ Cr.P.C ., 1973”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in ECIR No. ECIR/DLZO-I/31/2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “said ECIR”).
2. The petitioner has been arrested in the aforesaid ECIR on 10.11.2023, on the allegations that he had projected and concealed the property which was a proceed of crime in relation to a Scheduled Offence and was a beneficiary thereof.
3. The brief background is that the CBI, Economic Offence-II Branch, New Delhi registered an FIR bearing No. RC2202022E0007 dated 18.05.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “said RC”) under Section 120B of the IPC, 1860 and Sections 11/12/13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PC Act, 1988”) against the then Railway Minister, Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav and others for entering into a criminal conspiracy to abuse official position in order to obtain pecuniary benefits in the form of land parcels being transferred to his family members and Companies thereof in return for appointment to the post of substitute (Group-D) under the various zones of the Indian Railways, commonly known as Job for Land Scam. As per the allegation in the said RC, seven land parcel ad measuring about 1,05,292 sq. feet land situated at Patna were acquired by the family members of Lalu Prasad Yadav through five Sale Deeds and two Gift Deeds.
4. The respondent has registered the said ECIR as predicate offences had been made out in the said RC. During the investigations, the petitioner was summoned by the CBI on numerous occasions and on various dates and the petitioner cooperated in the investigations. The Chargesheet in the said RC has already been filed. As per the investigations, three parcels of land situated at Village Mahuabagh and Village Kunjwa, Patna were transferred in the names of Smt. Rabri Devi and Smt. Misha Bharti. In lieu of the same, engagement of total nine persons as substitute in Group-D in Central Railways was approved in close proximity to the transfer of land parcels.
5. Further investigations in the said RC found no role of the petitioner in the commission of a predicate offence and recorded his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C ., 1973. The Supplementary Chargesheet has also been filed by the CBI in the said RC, according to which, one parcel of land of Hazari Rai was purchased by the Promoter/Director of M/s AK Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. by payment of sale consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 10.83 lakhs to Hazari Rai.
6. It was also found in the said RC that the petitioner had transferred his shareholding in the Company on 13.06.2014 and resigned immediately thereafter on 19.06.2014. The petitioner though parted away from the alleged proceed of crime i.e., one land parcel purchased from Hazari Rai on 13.04.2014. The petitioner‟s status as a protected witness is not being disputed by any party. In fact, the petitioner has been cited as a protected witness.
7. The petitioner has asserted that he belongs to a reputed family which owns Krrish Group of Companies and is in business since 1983 of Breweries and Distilleries which later also got into the Real Estate business since 2008. The Group Companies are developing Real Estate Projects in Gurugram, Haryana. The petitioner is also a tax payer and a law abiding citizen and is a permanent resident of Delhi.
8. The petitioner has asserted that and his family is in the business of liquor manufacturing and packaging. He incorporated M/s Iceberg Industries Ltd, previously known as Iceberg Consultants Limited, in the year 29.07.1994 for the purpose of setting up breweries and distilleries plant and the petitioner became its Director. The Company purchased the land parcel in Bihta,
