[PMLA] Liberty Is Intrinsic To Rule Of Law, Court Cannot Be Restrained From Granting Bail On Account Of Restrictive Statute: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to a man being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA for allegedly running a fake call centre and promising services to victims in exchange for money, which were never delivered. The alleged victims were from countries such as the US, UK, Germany, Australia, etc.Justice Suvra Ghosh held: The charge sheet of the scheduled offence does not name the victims who are undoubtedly the best persons to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. A constitutional Court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-under trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional Court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part, she added.The present complaint originated against the petitioner and others for alleged clandestine business of call centres, and duping people out of money. Seeking release of the petitioner on bail, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by virtue of a leave and licence agreement executed between LGW Industries Limited and Met Technologies Private Limited (the petitioner's company) on 1st July, 2020, LGW Industries granted leave and licence in respect of the property in question to Met Technologies. Met Technologies, in turn, let out the premises on leave and licence to E-unite communication (OPC) Private Limited (Rakesh Chowdhury's company) The premises was given on sub lease to E-unite and the bank transactions which took place between E-unite and Met Technologies were towards payment of rent in terms of the agreement and therefore cannot be termed as proceeds of crime. It was stated that though the Enforcement Directorate (in short the E.D.) has alleged that Rakesh Choudhury paid at least 1.50 crores in cash to the petitioner during the relevant period which can be termed as proceeds of crime, there is no evidence to substantiate such transaction. It was stated that the said allegation was made on the basis of a statement of co-accused Aditya Gupta recorded under section 50 of the PMLA which is not corroborated by any other evidence. It was argued that there was no existence of any tangible legal evidence on which witness action can stand. The petitioner was in fact granted bail bythe learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar in connection with the predicate offence on the ground of absence of victims in the charge sheet. Counsel for the E.D. has submitted that the petitioner along with Rakesh Choudhury designed the racket of operating fake call centres introducing themselves as representatives of several companies and cheated innocent people in the guise of offering different types of loans to them, the calls being made to people all over the globe. The call centres used to convince innocent people to pay a good amount for obtaining services which were never delivered. The call centres lacked authority to run Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) or toll-free Primary Rate Interface (PRI) and Call Line Identity (CLI) numbers which are mandatory for running BPO with in-bound calls. Details of the victims and amounts paid by them have been unearthed during investigation. Rakesh Choudhury shared a part of his illegal earnings, i.e., proceeds of crime with the petitioner in return for the infrastructural support provided by the latter. It was stated that the petitioner's detention is crucial to prevent him from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. He is also a flight risk in view of his international connections and financial resources. Upon hearing the parties, the court went through the evidence, and looked at the twin test under Section 45 of the PMLA. It was held that, in this case, the petitioner had been investigated and was granted bail by the trial court in the predicate offence as well.Thus it was held that the continued detention of the petitioner was not warranted, and hence the court granted bail.Case: Kunal Gupta v/s. Enforcement DirectorateCase No: C.R.M. (SB) 84 of 2024Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 270Click here to read order

[PMLA] Liberty Is Intrinsic To Rule Of Law, Court Cannot Be Restrained From Granting Bail On Account Of Restrictive Statute: Calcutta HC

Srinjoy Das

Tags