Summary
The Supreme Court refused bail in a money-laundering prosecution concerning Shakti Bhog’s alleged diversion of bank funds. Witness statements and documents prima facie implicated the appellant, who had not satisfied Section 45 PMLA. Bail granted to others on medical grounds or on a materially different role did not establish parity. The Court emphasised that continued detention must be accompanied by a trial concluded within a reasonable time.
Issues
- Whether the appellant satisfied the statutory twin conditions for bail under Section 45 PMLA.
- Whether omission from the original FIR and earlier complaints or bail granted to co-accused justified release.
- Whether anticipated trial delay warranted bail on the present record.
Provisions considered
- Section 3 and its Explanation, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002Money laundering is an independent offence concerning processes or activities connected with proceeds of scheduled crime; the relevant conduct is participation in the laundering activity, not merely the date of the predicate offence. (¶¶ 8, 10, 15–16)
- Section 45(1) and (2), Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002The twin conditions were mandatory in addition to ordinary bail limitations and were not satisfied on the prima facie material. (¶¶ 9, 11–13, 17, 20)
- Section 24, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002The rebuttable statutory presumption regarding proceeds of crime informed the Court’s consideration; the bail-stage burden could be discharged on probabilities, but was not discharged here. (¶¶ 12, 17, 20)
- Section 50, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002The Court treated statements recorded under this provision as admissible and considered them alongside documentary material showing prima facie involvement. (¶ 14–16)
- Sections 65 and 71, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002Ordinary criminal procedure applies insofar as consistent with the special Act; a Section 439 application remained subject to the PMLA bail requirements. (¶¶ 12, 17)
- Sections 439 and 436A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973General bail powers did not displace Section 45. Section 436A remained a case-specific safeguard against excessive detention, with reasoned continuation possible under its proviso. (¶¶ 17, 20–21)
- Articles 14 and 21, Constitution of IndiaPositive equality does not require repetition of illegality. The Court also stressed the obligation to conclude trials within a reasonable time while detention continues. (¶¶ 19, 21, 23)
Held
- A bail court need not meticulously weigh trial evidence, but must apply its mind to the accusations, supporting material, punishment, individual circumstances, attendance and interference risks, and public interest. Its findings remain tentative. (¶ 13)
- Absence of the appellant’s name from the initial FIR and earlier complaints did not defeat the later case. Section 50 statements and documents prima facie showed knowing participation and benefit from the alleged proceeds. (¶ 14–16)
- The twin conditions of Section 45 remained applicable even when bail was sought under Section 439 CrPC. On the material before it, the Court was not satisfied of reasonable grounds for believing the appellant not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence on bail. (¶¶ 17, 20)
- Parity requires attention to the accused’s individual role and grounds of release. Medical bail to other accused and the internal auditor’s different role did not establish parity; the Court did not decide the correctness of the auditor’s bail order, which was separately under challenge. (¶ 18–19)
- Completion of investigation against the appellant and an apprehension of prolonged trial did not justify bail on this record. The Court recognised Section 436A’s safeguard and required courts continuing detention to ensure trial within a reasonable time. (¶ 20–23)
Result
Appeal dismissed; refusal of bail upheld. Courts continuing detention were expected to conclude the trial within a reasonable time, consistent with the right to speedy trial.