Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Vipin Yadav and Associates in Rs. 641 Crore Money Laundering Case
Prolonged incarceration and arbitrary prosecution prompt bail under PMLA despite stringent provisions.
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Amit Mahajan, has granted bail to Vipin Yadav, Ajay, and Rakesh Karwa, key accused in a massive Rs. 641 crore money laundering case. The case, registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, involves intricate allegations of cyber fraud and laundering of proceeds through a complex network of mule accounts and cryptocurrency transactions.
The court's decision hinged on two primary grounds: the principle of parity and the protracted delay in trial proceedings, which are deemed to violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, safeguarding the right to life and liberty. Notably, the court observed that despite the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), undue delay in trial and prolonged incarceration necessitate conditional liberty.
Justice Mahajan highlighted the arbitrary approach of the investigating agency, pointing out the non-arrest of Rohit Aggarwal, alleged mastermind of the syndicate, as a significant factor. The court noted that while the applicants were arrested, Aggarwal, despite his purported graver role, remained at large, suggesting selective prosecution.
Moreover, the court took into account the substantial period already spent by the applicants in custody-since November 2024 for Yadav and Ajay, and January 2025 for Karwa-while the trial remains at a preliminary stage. With over 1000 documents and 146 witnesses involved, the court recognized the improbability of a swift trial conclusion.
The judgment also emphasized the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in various cases, underscoring that prolonged detention without trial contravenes the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21, thereby justifying bail even under stringent laws like the PMLA.
The applicants are required to adhere to specific conditions, including furnishing a personal bond, not leaving the country without court permission, cooperating with further investigations, and attending all court hearings.
The court's decision reflects a critical balance between safeguarding individual liberties and the imperative to combat financial crimes, setting a precedent in the interpretation of bail provisions under the PMLA.
Bottom Line:
Prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can override the rigours of Section 45 of PMLA for granting bail. Parity and selective prosecution by the investigating agency are relevant considerations for granting bail.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) Section 45, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Vipin Yadav v. Directorate of Enforcement, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2785148
