Courts Can't Punish PMLA Accused Only Because ED Tosses Large Volume Of Documents In Complaint: Delhi Court Grants Bail

While granting bail to a man in a money laundering case, a Delhi Court has recently observed that a PMLA accused cannot be presumed to be guilty only because ED tosses large volume of documents in the complaint to magnify the alleged offence.

“Nor can courts allow themselves to be a tool to punish the accused by presuming that he is guilty only because the Enforcement Directorate tossed over a large volume of documents and used embellishments in the complaint magnifying the offence as against even an accused person who is not named in those documents and without allowing the commencement of trial testing the genuineness and acceptability of these documents or the impact of their contents,” Special Judge Aparna Swami of Rouse Avenue Courts observed.

The Court granted bail to one Jatin Chopra in a PMLA case alleging outward remittances being sent to certain entities at China and Singapore from India.

It was alleged that Chopra created multiple shell entities by hiring individuals and presented forged and fabricated import documents in banks for sending foreign outward remittances. The proceeds of crime attributed to Chopra was more than Rs. 136 crore.

The judge observed that ground of parity was available to Chopra as other co accused in the case who were out on bail allegedly played a role much greater than that ascribed to him.

“The law does not prescribe that the applicant will have to remain in custody for as much period as his co-accused persons who have been granted bail, before he can be treated at par with them. Courts are institutions meant to impart justice. They are guided by the law and by reason. They cannot be used as a tool to mechanically keep people in prison regardless of absence of admissible and legal acceptable evidence against them,” the Court said.

It added that bail cannot be denied by sadistically insisting that a person claiming parity should remain in prison for as much time as his co-accused persons.

The judge said that there is also no thumb rule that in cases under the PMLA, all accused persons must remain in custody for at least six months or one year before they can apply for bail.

“Insisting on such tenures in prison will amount to rewriting the law and redefining deadlines under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, besides giving freedom to investigating agencies to tinker with a person's liberty by carrying out arbitrary arrests and leaving them with no respite for the said period of six months or one year,” the Court said.

It concluded that there was nothing on record to suggest that Chopra would commit offences under the PMLA if released on bail.

“The case is not making any headway. There are 89 witnesses in the list that has been sent so far. There are around twenty-five thousand pages among the charge-sheet and relied upon documents. Trial, whenever it commences (since further investigation is going on), will take substantial period,” the Court said.

While the ED resisted the prayer for bail on the ground of gravity of offence, however, the Court said that the said ground alone cannot preclude the grant of bail.

Chopra was represented by Advocate Dhruv Gupta.