Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ED

53. Shri Zohaib Hossain, learned counsel for the respondent/ED contended that the present application seeking bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is wholly misconceived, premature and liable to be rejected, as the Applicant has played a central and supervisory role in the generation, handling and layering of proceeds of crime in the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam involving hundreds of crores of rupees. The material collected during investigation clearly establishes the Applicant's active participation in the process and activity connected with proceeds of crime, thereby attracting Section 3 punishable under Section 4 PMLA. The Applicant does not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA, and therefore is not entitled to bail.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 45 PMLA

84. It is well settled that while considering bail under the PMLA, the Court is required to record satisfaction with regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 45 of the Act. The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India, (2022) 10 SCC 386 has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 45 and has held that the twin conditions are mandatory. However, the said satisfaction is required to be prima facie satisfaction and not a finding of acquittal. The Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 has held that while dealing with an application for bail under the PMLA, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial and detailed appreciation of evidence is not warranted. Having considered the material placed on record in the light of the aforesaid principles, this Court proceeds to examine whether the Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

--but does not eclipse--bail jurisprudence. Material appraisal, not offence labelling, governs.

SATISFACTION OF SECTION 45 PMLA TWIN CONDITIONS

95. This Court has meticulously evaluated the bail application through the statutory prism of Section 45, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, weighing :

1. Material on record: Prosecution complaint sans direct attribution;

Applicant's non-inclusion in Main Chargesheet (01.07.2024) + seven Supplements.

2. The Role attributed: Supervisory capacity alleged, but unlinked to specific overt acts/money trails post exhaustive probe.

6. Supreme Court directions: Orders dated 28.01.2026 & 09.02.2026 in Applicant's own cases compel balanced adjudication. First Limb - "Reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty":The ED's tampering fears are vague/generalized (no specific instances of Applicant influencing witnesses). This collapses against Completed investigation (prosecution complaint filed) and Parity matrix (principal co-accused already on bail). No direct PMLA complicity shown - mere supervisory role allegation insufficient at bail stage. Second Limb - "Not likely to commit any offence while on bail" : No flight risk evidence and there is no recidivism history. Conditions neutralize risks: daily reporting, witness non-contact, passport surrender, GPS if needed. Both statutory conditions are met for bail entitlement under Section 45 PMLA. ED proves no specific threat. Investigation is over and Co-accused have been freed. Both twin conditions stand prima facie satisfied. Prolonged detention lacks justification once the police investigation concludes (e.g., via charge sheet filing), as further custody serves no investigative purpose. The Courts must apply parity--equal treatment--where risks like tampering or absconding are adequately mitigated by bail conditions such as reporting, sureties, or travel bans, rather than indefinite incarceration.