Supreme Court Relaxes S.45 PMLA Conditions, Grants Bail Citing Long Custody & Time Needed To Complete Trial

The Supreme Court today granted bail to Ramkripal Meena, who is accused of leaking and distributing question papers of the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers, 2021 (REET), for a payment of Rs.1.20 crores. 

The relief was granted in a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in relation to the paper leak.

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing Meena's challenge to a Rajasthan High Court order denying bail when it noted that he had spent over a year in custody and the only predicate offence against him was Section 420 IPC.

It was further observed that he had already been granted bail in the predicate offence and that the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) examination of witnesses (24 in number) would take time.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court said that the rigors of Section 45 of PMLA could be relaxed.

"Adverting to the prayer for grant of bail, it is pointed out by ED that the complaint is at the stage of framing of charges...24 witnesses are proposed to be examined...the conclusion will thus take some reasonable time. The petitioner has been in custody for more than a year. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody and there is no likelihood of a conclusion of trial within a short span, apart from the fact that the petitioner is already on bail in the predicate offence, it seems to us that rigours of Section 45 can be relaxed in peculiar facts and circumstances...."

As such, the Court granted the benefit of bail, subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the Sessions Court. Additionally, it was directed that Meena's passport shall remain with the Special Court, that he shall furnish a list of his immovable assets (which ED would be at liberty to attach) and that his bank account shall remain seized.

Submissions during the hearing

During arguments, Advocate K Parmeswar apprised that Meena was earlier granted regular bail by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, he came to be arrested by ED, even though no predicate e was made out. He alleged that it was a case of malicious prosecution and ED was trying to keep Meena in jail.

Parmeswar further submitted that while the provisions of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 did not constitute "scheduled offence", no offence under Section 420 IPC (a scheduled offence under PMLA) was made out against Meena, as it requires non-fulfilment of a promise made falsely. On the contrary, he urged, it was ED's case that Meena sold the question papers to certain candidates, and as a result of it, they were successful.

Justice Kant, however, disagreed and said that Section 420 IPC does not require a bargain. The judge also pointed out that ED was intending to send Meena to a correctional home, and not jail.

On specific court query, ED's counsel, on the other hand, informed that the case was pending at the stage of framing of charge and 24 witnesses were sought to be examined by the agency.

Background

To recap, petitioner-Ramkripal Meena was arraigned for offences under Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC, and Sections 4 & 6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992.

The allegations against him were that without any authority and in connivance with one Pradeep Kumar, he got access to the strong room where papers for REET 2021 were stored and stole them. Pursuant to the stealing, he sold the papers for Rs.1.20 Crores to two persons viz. Udaram Bishnoi and Rajuram Iram.

As per the prosecution case, an amount of Rs.1.06 crores was recovered during investigation from 8 persons, at Meena's instance.

Initially, Meena approached the Sessions Court for bail, however, his plea was dismissed in September, 2023. Assailing this order, he approached the Rajasthan High Court. But the High Court as well did not find any ground to extent the relief of bail to Meena.

“…there is ample evidence available against the accused implying that he obtained an amount of Rs.1.06 Crores by selling the REET, 2021 papers. The recovery of aforesaid amount from above eight persons further shows that the accused siphoned the proceeds of the crime to various persons. The recovery of Rs.1.06 Crores from the above persons exemplifies the use/concealment of the proceeds of crime by the present petitioner”, the High Court noted.

Insofar as Meena raised issues regarding his booking under Section 420 and 120B IPC as well as the "proceeds of crime" alleged to have been concealed, the High Court observed,

“Whether, the predicate offence under Sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. is made out or not and whether the amount recovered from various persons is their legitimate amount or not, are the questions to be ascertained by the trial court, this Court cannot proceed into the intricacies of the case with regard to above issues, at the stage of bail."

Aggrieved by the High Court order, Meena moved the Supreme Court.

Case Title: Ramkripal Meena Versus Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 3205/2024