Recently, the Delhi High Court offers critical insight into the evolving bail jurisprudence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). This decision highlights the application of statutory presumptions under Section 24 and the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 of the Act. The case represents a significant and complex interplay between statutory presumptions, serious economic offences, and the rights of a foreign-based accused. It centers on allegations of illegal foreign remittances routed through forged documentation and examines the ensuing liability of a foreign company director under Sections 3, 4, and 70 of the PMLA. The Court’s ruling provides crucial judicial guidance on the enforcement framework for addressing international financial offences, reaffirming the stringent standards required for granting bail in cases involving economic crimes of a transnational character.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from an EOW investigation into forged documents and illegal remittances exceeding ₹300 crores. Shri Amrit Pal Singh, Director of Hong Kong-based M/s Broway Group Ltd., was named in a supplementary PMLA complaint for allegedly receiving ₹20.75 crores from M/s Mizta Tradex Pvt. Ltd. under the pretext of importing semiconductor devices. While Singh claimed the transaction was legitimate and supported by documentation, the ED alleged it was a sham to launder proceeds of crime. Though not named in the original FIR, Singh was implicated without prior notice. His anticipatory bail was rejected for failing to meet PMLA’s twin conditions, leading him to seek relief before the Delhi High Court under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the ₹20.75 crores received from M/s Mizta Tradex Pvt. Ltd. was a genuine business transaction for importing semiconductor devices, supported by invoices, airway bills, Customs-assessed entries, and RBI-coded banking records. He claimed exemption from Form 15CA/CB under Rule 37BB(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules and argued that the predicate offence involving forged remittance forms had no connection to him. Noting he was not named in the original FIR and lacked any link to the alleged conspiracy, he relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India and Prem Prakash v. Union of India to assert that without a direct nexus to the proceeds of crime or a scheduled offence, Section 3 of the PMLA was not attracted.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents contended that the petitioner was a direct beneficiary of fraudulent remittances from Indian shell companies under the pretext of import payments and had repeatedly evaded summons under Section 50 of the PMLA on unverifiable medical grounds. Based on statements from co-accused Rahul Kumar and Chitra Pandey, the ED alleged his active involvement in a wider conspiracy using forged documents and fictitious entities. As a Hong Kong resident with no substantial ties to India, he was deemed a flight risk, with his airport interception seen as an attempt to evade investigation. Emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation and citing Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India and Virbhadra Singh v. Enforcement Directorate, the ED argued that his non-compliance with statutory summons and failure to meet Section 45 of the PMLA conditions warranted denial of anticipatory bail.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the case involved serious allegations of economic offences, including transnational money laundering carried out through forged documentation and layered transactions intended to disguise the origin of illicit funds. It noted that the applicant, being the sole director of the Hong Kong-based company, had consistently evaded investigation and exhibited sustained non-cooperation. Given the preliminary stage of the investigation and the applicant’s central role, the Court held that custodial interrogation remained necessary.
Relying on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the Court emphasized that even at the anticipatory bail stage, the presumption of guilt and the risk of reoffending must be assessed, and the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA must be strictly satisfied. The applicant’s conduct, such as his non-appearance despite receiving summons, failure to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA, and earlier denial of relief under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, further weighed against the grant of bail.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that granting pre-arrest protection would undermine the integrity of the ongoing investigation, and reiterated that anticipatory bail in such cases should be granted sparingly and only upon clear satisfaction of the statutory thresholds.
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Court rejected the Applicant's plea for granting anticipatory bail.
Case Title: Shri Amrit Pal Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Case No.: Bail Application 1322/2025
Coram: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Advocate for Appellant/Petitioner: Adv. Anjali Jha Manish, Priyadarshi Manish, Madhuri Malegaonkar
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Zoheb Hossain, Vivek Gurnani, Kartik Sabharwal, Kanishk Maurya, Pranjal Tripathi, Anand Khatri, Ilma Khan
Read Judgment @LatesLaws.com
Picture Source :
