Justice Girish Kathpalia, Delhi High Court
Accused Allegedly Involved In Generation Of Proceeds Of Crime By Undertaking Rampant Illegal & Unscientific Mining: Delhi High Court Dismisses Bail Plea In Money Laundering Case
|The accused sought bail for offences under Sections 45 and 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the applications for regular as well as interim bail in a money laundering case, while remarking that the accused is allegedly involved in the generation of proceeds of crime by undertaking rampant illegal and unscientific mining.
The accused sought bail under Sections 45 and 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The bail application pertained to a Prosecution Complaint by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The bail was sought on merits as well as on medical grounds.
A Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia remarked, “During investigation searches at various premises were conducted and voluminous incriminating material was recovered and seized, which material prima facie reflected commission of the Scheduled Offences related to illegal mining, leading to generation of proceeds of crime.”
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa appeared for the Petitioner, while Standing Counsel Zoheb Hossain represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Prosecution alleged that the accused was the mastermind of a criminal conspiracy, which involved generation, acquisition, layering, concealment and projection of proceeds of crime generated out of illegal mining of minor minerals without any valid licenses. The prosecution further alleged that the accused was a key person in the network of transporters involved in transportation of the illegally mined minerals and collection of illegal royalty. The complaint highlighted that the accused used to supervise and control the collection of illegal royalty from various transporters and suppliers on behalf of various beneficiaries.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court remarked, “The issue of grant or denial of bail in offences under the PML Act is regulated under Section 45 thereof, which, succinctly stating, mandates for giving an opportunity to the prosecutor to oppose the bail application and further embodies twin mandatory conditions for allowing bail to the accused: (i) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence of money laundering; and (ii) that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. However, proviso to Section 45 also confers discretion on the Special Court under the PML Act to admit on bail an accused under the age of sixteen years, or a woman, or sick or infirm or is accused of money laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees.”
The Bench reiterated that “it is trite that economic offences constitute an altogether distinct class of offences. That being so, in spite of the salutary doctrine of bail is the rule and jail is an exception, matters of bail in cases involving socio-economic offences have to be visited with a different approach,” as held by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar. v. Amit Kumar (2017).
“The role of the accused/applicant in the offences, according to the investigation is that he is the kingpin and the biggest beneficiary of the illegal mining. Large number of willing partners, benamis and facilitators connived with the accused/applicant in various activities associated with the proceeds of crime, generated through illegal mining and fudging of shareholding records in the books, as analyzed elaborately in the complaint,” the Court explained.
The Bench further noted, “The accused/applicant was actually involved in generation of proceeds of crime by undertaking rampant illegal and unscientific mining through GMM and transferring the proceeds to his personal and/or family accounts, followed by utilizing the same as untainted property, as detailed in the Complaint.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “To recapitulate, the elaborate Complaint, supported by voluminous documentary record reflecting the unlawful gain to the accused persons, including the accused/applicant and the consequent unlawful loss to the exchequer quantified to be Rs.78,14,75,324/-, coupled with failure on the twin tests laid down under Section 45 of the PML Act; and no serious health issue decipherable from the Medical Status Report received from the jail, I find it not a fit case to release the accused/applicant on bail. The applications (for regular as well as for interim bail) are dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Bail Application.
Cause Title: Vedpal Singh Tanwar v. Directorate Of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4942)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa; Advocates Sumer Singh Boparai, Sirhaan Seth, Surya Pratap Singh and Sanskriti Shakuntala Gupta
Respondent: Standing Counsel Zoheb Hossain