PMLA | Money Laundering Impedes Progress Of Nation, Rigours Of Bail U/S 45 Must Not Be Overlooked: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined bail to a man accused of money laundering involving a financial fraud amounting to Rs.1626.7 crore, observing that rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) lay down an exceptionally high yardstick for granting bail.

As per Section 45, bail can be granted to an accused in a money laundering case only if twin conditions are satisfied - there should be prima facie satisfaction that the accused has not committed the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "it needs to be emphasized that offences under PMLA constitute a category of their own and must be viewed with utmost seriousness as such offences not only pose a serious danger to the economic health of the nation but also impede the progress of the country."

Such offences are committed with intense planning and calculation, and camouflaged surreptitiously, necessitating the investigating agency to go through the material collected with a fine comb so as to uncover the such scams which, if left unaddressed, would without doubt be fatal to economic health of the country, added the Court.

Thus, it said, "the rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA which lay down an exceptionally high yardstick for grant of bail under PMLA, must not be given a go-by."

A bail petition was filed under Section 439 of the CrPC by Surjeet Kumar Bansal, a 74-year-old individual booked under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.

It was alleged that Bansal and his firm, serving as a statutory auditor of the accused company, issued various certificates that facilitated the extension of loans to the accused company by a consortium of banks.

The petitioner allegedly intentionally failed to disclose in the audit report that bank funds were being illicitly transferred and diverted through the utilisation of shell companies.

It was also stated that Bansal provided assistance by issuing false Chartered Accountant certificates to accused company, which were used to obtain loans from a consortium of banks.

After hearing the submissions, the Court rejected the petitioner's argument that his arrest violates Section 19 of the PMLA.

It noted that an analysis of the grounds of arrest elucidate that the Arresting Officer explicitly delineated that, based on the investigation, "the directors and promoters of the accused company, with the active aid and assistance of the petitioner, perpetrated a bank fraud through forged documents."

Thus, it is evident that the Arresting Officer comprehensively outlined the involvement of the petitioner in the crime in question, elucidating the modus operandi, to apprise him of the accusations against him, it added.

Justice Kaul further said that the necessity for the petitioner's arrest is further evident from the Grounds of Arrest, wherein it was categorically stated that his custody was required to trace the money trail and locate the entire proceeds of crime concealed through various channels, within the petitioner's exclusive knowledge.

The judge also noted that the petitioner neither appeared nor participated in the investigation despite issuance of summons on July 20, 2022, thereby justifying his arrest to effectively conclude the investigation.

"Furthermore, it is not even the case of the petitioner that the Grounds of Arrest were not supplied to him much less within reasonable time. Hence, under these circumstances, neither the arrest of the petitioner can be deemed a violation of Section 19 of the PMLA nor can the remand order be regarded as illegal or mechanical in nature," said the Court.

Justice Kaul also clarified that the petitioner is not implicated in the FIR related to the scheduled offence, however, it would not preclude the ED from initiating proceedings under the PMLA.

"It is well settled law that a person accused of an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA need not necessarily be accused of the scheduled offence," the Court added.

The Court emphasised that offences under PMLA are committed with intense planning and calculation, and camouflaged surreptitiously, necessitating the investigating agency to go through the material collected with a fine comb so as to uncover the such scams which, if left unaddressed, would without doubt be fatal to economic health of the country.

In the light of the above, the Court opined that the allegations against the petitioner involving a huge financial fraud amounting to Rs.1626.7 crores, "no ground has been made out to release him on bail at this stage."

Consequently, the plea was dismissed.

Title: Surjeet Kumar Bansal v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another

Vikram Chaudhri, Senior Advocate with Keshavam Chaudhri, Mr. Digvijay Singh and Rishab Tewari, Advocates for the petitioner.

Gagandeep S. Wasu, Spl. Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-CBI.

Shobhit Phutela, Sr. Panel Counsel, UOI with Bhawna Gandhi & Vivek Singh, Advocates for respondent No.2-ED.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 112

Click here to read/download the order