The court considered the satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA and the triple test under Section 439 of Cr.PC, as well as the larger interest of the public and the State, and the influence the accused wielded, in reaching its decision.

Headnote:
Money Laundering - Bail Application - The court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for alleged offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court found that the petitioner did not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA and the triple test under Section 439 of Cr.PC. The court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused was not guilty and that there was a likelihood of him committing an offence while on bail. The court also considered the larger interest of the public and the State, and the influence the accused wielded, and dismissed the bail application.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a former Transport Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu, was alleged to have orchestrated a job scam by collecting money for job opportunities in connivance with his personal assistants and brother. The Enforcement Directorate registered a case under the PMLA against the petitioner and others. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner filed multiple bail applications, all of which were dismissed. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of change in circumstances, completion of investigation, and resignation from his ministerial position.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner did not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA and the triple test under Section 439 of Cr.PC. The court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused was not guilty and that there was a likelihood of him committing an offence while on bail. The court also considered the larger interest of the public and the State, and the influence the accused wielded, and dismissed the bail application.
Issues: The issues involved the satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA and the triple test under Section 439 of Cr.PC, as well as the influence of the accused and the larger interest of the public and the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA and the triple test under Section 439 of Cr.PC. The court also considered the larger interest of the public and the State, and the influence the accused wielded, and dismissed the bail application.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner and directed the Special Court to dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

O R D E R

The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14-06-

2023 for alleged offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “the PMLA”) punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA in ECIR No. MDSZO/21/2021, presently pending in C.C.No.9 of

2023, before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, seeks for bail in this petition.

2. The brief facts of the case:

2.1.Between 2011 and 2016, the petitioner was holding the position of Transport Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu. While serving as a Minister, it is alleged that, he, in connivance with his personal assistants and along with his brother, orchestrated collection of money by promising job opportunities in various positions within the Transport Department. This gave rise to several complaints made by candidates, who had paid the money but were not able to secure the employment. The investigation ultimately ended with three final reports filed by the Central Crime Branch, Chennai in C.C.No.19 of 2020, C.C.No.24 of 2021 and C.C. No.25 of 2021 and in all these cases, the petitioner has been arrayed as A.1 and it is pending before the trial of cases relating to MP/MLA Special Court.

2.2.On the basis of the above cases, the Enforcement Directorate entered into the scene and after collecting the required information/documents registered a case in ECIR No. MDSZO/21/2021 on 29/07/2021, against the petitioner and others under the provisions of the PMLA.

2.3.The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

14/06/2023. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.22608 of 2023 and this petition was dismissed by an Order dated 20/09/2023. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.OP.No.23629 of 2023, before this Court seeking for bail and this petition was also dismissed by an Order dated 19/10/2023.

2.4.The petitioner has once again filed a bail application before the Court below in Crl.MP.No.81 of 2024 and the same was dismissed by an Order dated 12/01/2024. Thereafter, the present bail application has been moved before this Court.

3.SUBMISSIONS:

3.1.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there are change in circumstances in the present bail application and there have been many developments that had taken place after the dismissal of the earlier bail petitions filed before the Court below as well as this Court. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the triple test under Section 439 of Cr.PC., and the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA has been satisfied by the petitioner in this bail application.

3.2.The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has resigned from his position as a Minister effective from 13/02/2024 onwards. Therefore, the earlier ground that was put against the petitioner, as if the petitioner will use his position as a Minister and tamper with witnesses/evidence is no longer available. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the investigation has been completed by the respondent and a complaint has already been filed before the Court below which is pending in C.C.No.9 of 2023 and therefore, there is no question of tampering with evidence at this stage and the petitioner need not be continued to be kept in incarceration even after the complaint has been filed before the Court below by the respondent. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the abscondence of the brother of the petitioner, cannot be put against the petitioner and the abscondence of a co-accused is not a ground to deny the bail. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner is willing to comply with any conditions imposed by this Court if he is enlarged on bail.

3.3.Insofar as the twin conditions mandated under Section 45 of the PMLA, it was submitted that the petitioner satisfies both the conditions. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there are reaso

Click Here to Read the rest of this document