2024 (5) TMI 788 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Money Laundering - Grant of bail - presumption of innocence and its appreciation in respect of the offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and its overriding effect over Section 45 of PMLA - HELD THAT:- In this Case amount transpired in course of investigation initially is recovering of the seized cash amount and the same was at the behest of a complaint lodged by a nationalised bank in respect of transactions/debit credit taking place in some of the accounts and the same being routed through another nationalised bank. The holder of the main five companies were found to have a single address which was rented for two months and so far as shell-companies are concerned which were from Jamshedpur, Jharkhand mainly in those case on scrutiny of the records which were furnished for opening the accounts the same were found to be fake or non-existent. Going by the allegations against the present petitioner in the complaint the petitioner was applying his mind, knowledge and conscience for routing out the money which was illegally acquired by Tushar Patil, Prasenjit Das, Viraj Suhas Patil. The role of the petitioner was for concealment and projecting proceeds of crime as untainted money.

Delay and long detention in custody have never been accepted by the constitutional courts and wherever there has been unreasonable delay the Courts have favoured the constitutional mandate of liberty. However, there are cases where the statute is built in such a manner that the complicity simpliciter is not a criteria but the detention is on the basis of guilt and the present case is one of such nature.

It is a fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than 14 months but the nature of the offence complained of requires time for investigation as the procedure adopted in concealment and its unearthing both are time consuming. It has been submitted by the Enforcement Directorate that not only investigation is continuing but immovable assets which have been the outcome of such proceeds of crime are being traced to countries or abroad and for which time is being consumed.

Having regard to the fact that although complaint has been filed in this case but yet further investigation is at a crucial stage, the petitioner cannot be released on bail only on the ground of delay having regard to the fact that he has not been able to overcome the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.