The Delhi High Court explained the twin conditions governing the grant or denial of bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court also clarified that the Courts were simply expected to satisfy themselves, based on a prima facie view of the matter, by considering the broad probabilities evident from the materials of the case. Additionally, the Courts were required to ascertain whether or not the accused possessed the required mens rea for the alleged offence.
Brief Facts:
A Petition was filed before the High Court seeking bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) read with section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”).
Brief Background:
Registered on the complaint of Mr. Vinod Rajagopalan, acting as the Authorised Signatory of M/s. Malav Holdings Private Limited (referred to as "MHL"), the FIR alleged that the Accused individuals had syphoned off Rs.18.88 crores from M/s. Ligare Aviation Limited (referred to as "Ligare") in 2014-15 through fake invoices.
However, the Petitioner's name was not explicitly mentioned as an accused in the FIR.
The petitioner, a resident of Dubai, arrived in India and was informed by immigration authorities about a lookout circular issued against him. The Enforcement Directorate (referred to as "ED") summoned the Petitioner for investigation on 05.04.2022, and he complied on 07.04.2022. Subsequently, the investigating agency arrested the Petitioner at his Mumbai residence on 03.08.2022.
The Petitioner had filed a bail petition before the trial court, which was dismissed on 31.08.2022. Later, the Petitioner filed a Bail Application before this court but withdrew it with the liberty to seek the same relief before the Concerned Court. Now, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
It was contended that the Petitioners had no control or key position in Phoenix FZC and were merely authorised signatories. The Petitioners denied knowledge and any kind of interreference in the alleged transactions.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was argued that the petition pertained to scheduled offences under the PMLA and had to be strictly considered based on the conditions outlined in section 45 of the statute. It was claimed that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner was guilty of the offence under Section 3.
Furthermore, the ED accused the Petitioner of attempting to mislead and obstruct the investigation through non-cooperation, feigning ignorance about Phoenix FZC, and attempting to delete incriminating emails. These actions, according to the ED, had indicated the Petitioner's guilty mind and the likelihood of tampering with evidence if granted bail.
Observations of the Court:
It was concluded that when deciding a bail plea under PMLA, the Court is not required to extensively examine the merits of the allegations or meticulously assess the evidence gathered by the investigating agency. The Courts should satisfy themselves by taking a prima facie view of the matter and considering the broad probabilities evident from the material collected during the investigation. It needs to determine whether there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Additionally, the Courts should also evaluate whether the accused possessed the necessary mens rea for the offence.
The High Court further observed that Courts must ensure satisfaction regarding the likelihood of the accused committing any offence under PMLA while on bail. This assessment should take into account the accused's background, tendencies, and the nature and manner in which the offence was purportedly committed. The Courts are not obligated to render a definitive finding that the accused has not committed an offence. Rather, it must strike a delicate balance between a judgement of acquittal or conviction and a decision to grant or deny bail.
It was noted that the assessment conducted during the bail hearing is tentative in nature and does not bear any influence on the merits of the case. The Trial Court retains the freedom to adjudicate the matter based on the evidence presented during the trial, without being swayed by the previous bail determination.
The Delhi High Court, in this case, held that the Petitioner cooperated with the investigating agency and did not tamper with evidence.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasoning, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition and granted the bail accordingly.
Case Title: Ramesh Manglani v Directorate of Enforcement
Case No.: Bail Application 3611/2022
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Dewan, Ms. Sowjhanya Shankaran and Mr. Akash Arora
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel with Mr. Vivek Gumani and Mr. Baibha
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
