Court Cites Insufficient Evidence of Proceeds of Crime and Prolonged Incarceration as Key Factors
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to Wahidur Rahman, accused in a high-profile money laundering case linked to the Popular Front of India (PFI) and Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI). Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, presiding over the case, emphasized the lack of direct evidence linking Rahman to the proceeds of crime and the prolonged period of his pre-trial detention as pivotal factors in the decision to grant bail.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had accused Rahman of being involved in laundering Rs. 3.15 lakhs, a sum considerably below the monetary threshold of Rs. 1 crore stipulated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Court noted that the stringent twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA could be relaxed in this instance due to the lower sum involved.
The judgment highlighted that despite ED's extensive investigation and the large volume of financial transactions associated with PFI and SDPI, only a minimal amount was traced back to Rahman. Furthermore, the Court observed that the allegations against Rahman lacked substantial corroborative evidence, particularly in connecting the financial transactions to any scheduled offences under PMLA.
Acknowledging the arguments presented by Rahman's counsel, the Court considered the principle of parity, as a co-accused had previously been granted bail due to similar lack of evidence. Additionally, the Court was mindful of the fact that Rahman had already spent over a year in judicial custody, with the trial expected to be prolonged due to the extensive witness list and documentary evidence.
The Court imposed several conditions for Rahman's bail, including the furnishing of a personal bond, surrendering of his passport, and restrictions on contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence. The decision underscores the judiciary's emphasis on upholding personal liberty in the absence of conclusive evidence, even in cases involving serious allegations under the PMLA.
Bottom Line:
Grant of regular bail under PMLA - Role of accused, quantum of alleged transactions, and duration of incarceration considered - Bail granted subject to conditions.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 3, 4, 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 17/18/18-B/20/38/39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Wahidur Rahman v. Directorate of Enforcement, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2909801
