The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a person accused in a money laundering case, stating that such an accusation is not the same as being accused of murder, rape, or robbery.
The Delhi High Court granted bail to an accused in a money laundering case, stating that such an accused should not be compared to those charged with serious crimes like murder, rape, or robbery. This decision came during a bail application related to an FIR under Sections 417, 120B, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri emphasized that the liberty of an accused should not be restricted by Section 45 without considering all relevant factors. He noted that in most cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the maximum penalty is seven years, which is much less severe than the punishments for crimes that can lead to death or life imprisonment.
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa represented the accused, while Advocate Zoheb Hossain represented the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The case involved allegations that Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. from China, along with others, conspired to set up the Vivo group of companies in India without disclosing their actual ownership. It was claimed that Vivo Mobile India Private Limited and its State Distribution Companies hid their Chinese ownership, presenting Vivo India as a subsidiary of a Hong Kong company, Multi Accord Limited, while investigations revealed it was ultimately controlled by Vivo China.
The Applicant served as the Managing Director of M/s Lava International Ltd. (Lava). He was accused of inviting Chinese Nationals from Vivo China to help them establish a network of companies in India while hiding the true ownership. He allegedly provided them with logistical support and assisted in bypassing Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) regulations to gain a presence in India. Additionally, he was said to have transferred approximately Rs. 3.17 Crores, which included Rs. 2.62 Crores from Lava and Rs. 55 lacs from his personal account, to a company to aid Vivo China in setting up several firms without revealing that he controlled those entities. The High Court noted that the investigation began in 2022, with a Prosecution Complaint naming 48 accused and citing 527 witnesses. There are 80,000 pages of documents to review. A supplementary Prosecution Complaint filed on 19.02.2024 increased the number of accused to 53, added 15 witnesses, and included an additional 3,500 pages of documents.
The Court stated that in cases with many accused, extensive evidence, and numerous witnesses, where the trial is unlikely to conclude soon and the delay is not the fault of the accused, it is not acceptable to keep the accused in custody using Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) as a means of punishment. It emphasized that Constitutional Courts can grant bail if there is a violation of Part III of the Constitution, and Section 45 does not prevent this. The fundamental right to liberty and a fair trial must be upheld, even in cases with strict laws.
Since the requirements of Section 45 PMLA are met, and all other accused are on bail, along with the time already spent in custody and the trial being in the early stages of document exchange under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the Court ordered the Applicant to be released on regular bail. This is contingent upon the Applicant providing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh. Thus, the High Court concluded the Bail Application and granted bail to the accused.
Cause Title: Hari Om Rai v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:8972)
Appearance:
Applicant: Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, Advocates Abhay Raj, Anshay, Namisha, and Sanskriti.
Respondent: Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, SPP Manish Jain, Advocates Vivek, Pranjal, and Rishabh.
