'Prima Facie Money Laundering Made Out': Kerala High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Businessman Accused In Cashew Import Scam
The Kerala High Court recently rejected the anticipatory bail plea of businessman/cashew dealer Aneesh Babu, who is accused of money laundering and cheating a total of around ₹25 crores from multiple persons promising to deliver them imported cashews.Babu is arraigned in five crimes for the offences under Sections 120B, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, which...
The Kerala High Court recently rejected the anticipatory bail plea of businessman/cashew dealer Aneesh Babu, who is accused of money laundering and cheating a total of around ₹25 crores from multiple persons promising to deliver them imported cashews.
Babu is arraigned in five crimes for the offences under Sections 120B, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, which included scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Based on these crimes, Babu was booked by the ED allegedly for committing the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath dismissed the bail plea observing that a prima facie case of money laundering has been made out against Babu. The Court felt that custodial interrogation was necessary in the case since the amount involved is huge and there is possibility of witnesses being influenced.
The facts that the investigation was at a crucial stage and that Babu was not cooperating with the investigation were also considered by the Court.
The prosecution allegation is that Babu along with the other accused cheated crores of rupees from the complainants, making them believe that imported cashew from Tanzania would be delivered to them. In one of the crimes, Babu and his wife is accused of job fraud and receiving more than 1 lakh promising the complainant of a job in Tanzania.
His pre-arrest bail plea was rejected by the Sessions Court and thereafter, he came before the High Court.
Babu's counsel argued that he is innocent and the crimes were registered as a counter-blast for his complainant regarding corruption by ED official Shekhar Kumar, in which he is made an approver. He also submitted that offence under PMLA is not made out from the prosecution allegation.
The ASGI, on the other hand, argued that are sufficient materials to show Babu's involvement in the crime and opposed the bail. He referred to Section 45(1) PMLA and submitted that bail can be granted only on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., there are reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
Relying on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy of the Apex Court, the Court found that the twin conditions apply in pre-arrest bail applications as well. Thus, it came to the conclusion that while considering bail applications where offences under PMLA are made out, restrictions under the Cr.P.C and the twin conditions would apply.
Considering the facts before it, the Court felt that there was prima facie material to show Babu's involvement in the offences. Thus, it dismissed the bail plea.
Case No: B.A. No. 13987/2025
Case Title: Aneesh Babu v. Assistant Director
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 777
Counsel for the petitioner: Liju V. Stephen, Indu Susan Jacob, Jiji Joy, Sanjay Johnson Mathew
Counsel for the respondents: A.R.L. Sundaresan – ASGI, Jaishankar V. Nair – SC – ED, Cristy Therasa Suresh