HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Decided on: January 11, 2024
AMIT AGGARWAL VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

CORAM
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

PMLA Act Section 3 and 4 Grant of Anticipatory Bail The petitioner, is seeking anticipatory bail in an ongoing money laundering investigation The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleges that Petitioner was involved in a scheme to remit crores of rupees abroad using forged certificates and identities Petitioner argues that he was not involved in the scheme and that the ED’s case against him is based on the statements of cocons pirators who were coerced into making false accusations He also claims that he was physically assaulted by ED officials when he appeared for questioning – The ED contends that Petitioner was a key player in the scheme and that his fingerprints were found on some of the forged documents – The ED also points to the fact that Petitioner evaded questioning for several months before finally appearing before ED officials – The Delhi High Court has not yet ruled on Petitioner’s bail application The court is likely to weigh the evidence presented by both sides before making a decision The petitioner, a sick and infirm individual, is granted anticipatory bail after considering all facts, including co-accused statements under section 50 of PMLA, evidentiary value, no criminal activity, and the petitioner’s condition

Relevant Paras:

13. The counsel for the petitioner also argued that the twin conditions as per section 45 of PMLA are not applicable as the petitioner is a sick and infirm person and has already undergone repeated kidney surgeries and requires constant medical supervision and primarily relied upon Kewal Krishan Kumar (supra). The medical records/documents submitted by the petitioner reflect that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments including renal problem which requires constant medical treatment. This court in
Kewal Krishan Kumar (supra) has granted bail on ground of sickness and infirmity of the accused.
14. The CGSC also argued that the petitioner is avoiding investigation and his custodial investigation is required as the offence of money laundering involves multiple layers of placement, layering and integration. It is further argued that summons were issued to the petitioner to join investigation but the petitioner only joined investigation on 03.01.2023 and 04.01.2023 and subsequently avoided investigation. The CGSC also referred details of summons.

issued to the petitioner. The petitioner joined investigation on 03.01.2023 and 04.01.2023 and gave reasons for not joining investigation. The petitioner neither appears to be a flight risk, nor is he likely to influence any witness and tamper with the evidence.
15. This court in Vijay Agrawal (supra) also observed as under:-

22. The jurisprudence regarding bail is by now very well settled that rule has always been bail and its exception jail. It has also been stated time and again that such a principle has to be followed strictly. Right to bail is also essential for the reason that it provides the accused with an opportunity of securing fair trial. The right to bail is linked to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which confers right to live with
freedom and dignity. However, while protecting the right of an individual of freedom and liberty the court also has to consider the right of the society at large as well as the prosecuting agency. This is the reason that the gravity of the offence is required to be taken into account. The gravity of the offence is gathered from the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. It is a settled proposition that economic offences fall within the category of „grave offences.‟ While dealing with the economic offence cases, the court has to be sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the accused. Such economic offences normally involve the public exchequer and money of the honest tax
payer. The offence of money laundering in itself is a very serious offence. The money laundering not only is a threat to the financial health of the country but it may also adversely impact its integrity and sovereignty. Moreover, the act of money laundering can even lead to the collapse of the economic system.

To read the Judgment kindly click here

AMIT AGGARWAL. VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THE LAW LITERATES JUDGMENT DELHI HIGH COURT

All rights Reserved (Adv Vaibhav Tomar)