Money Laundering Accused Can't Be Equated With Murder, Rape Accused: Delhi High Court While Granting Bail In PMLA Case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday remarked that an accused in a money laundering case cannot be equated with those punishable with death, life imprisonment, ten years or more like offences such as murder, rape or dacoity.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri said that it is pertinent to keep in mind while dealing with the cases under the PMLA that except in a few exceptional cases, the maximum sentence can be of seven years.

Reiterating that keeping the accused in custody by using Section 45 PMLA as a tool for incarceration or as a shackle is impermissible, the Court said:

“The accused in a money laundering case cannot be equated with those punishable with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, etc.”

The Court made the observations while granting bail to Hari Om Rai, MD of Lava International mobile company, in a money laundering case involving smartphone maker Vivo.

ED alleged that Rai extended invitations to Chinese nationals and during their stay in India, they committed the predicate offence by using forged licenses to open bank accounts and obtain DINs.

It was further alleged that illegalities were committed in the Visa obtainment process by some of the Chinese nationals.

Granting bail to Rai, the Court noted that the investigation was initiated in 2022 and the Prosecution Complaint had named 48 accused persons and cited 527 witnesses.

“There are 80,000 pages of documents which need to be analysed. A supplementary Prosecution Complaint dated 19.02.2024 has also been filed as per which the number of accused has increased to 53, 15 additional witnesses have been cited and an additional 3500 pages of documents have been placed on record,” it noted further.

The Court observed there were multiple accused persons in the case, thousands of pages of evidence to assess, scores of witnesses were to be examined, the trial was not expected to end anytime in the near future and the delay was not attributable to Rai.

“When there is no possibility of trial being concluded in a reasonable time and the accused is incarcerated for a long time, depending on the nature of allegations, the conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA would have to give way to the constitutional mandate of Article 21,” the Court said.

Title: HARI OM RAI v. ED

Click here to read order