The Delhi High Court Ruled That The Accused Of Money Laundering Is Not The Same As The Accused Of Murder Or Rape When Granting Bail In The PMLA Case
Last Updated on November 20, 2024 by Arti Kumari
The Delhi High Court stated on Wednesday that an accused person in a money laundering case cannot be compared to those for crimes like murder, rape, or dacoity that carry sentences of death, life in prison, or ten years or more.
According to Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, it is important to remember that the maximum punishment under the PMLA is seven years, with the exception of a few rare circumstances.
The Court reiterated that it is unlawful to detain the accused in jail by employing Section 45 PMLA as a shackle or as a tool for incarceration.
As stated in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985, “the accused in a money laundering case cannot be equated with those punished with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, etc.”
In a money laundering case involving smartphone manufacturer Vivo, the court made these statements while granted bail to Hari Om Rai, MD of Lava International mobile company.
Rai was accused by the ED of inviting Chinese nationals, who then committed the predicate offence while in India by opening bank accounts and obtaining DINs using fraudulent licenses.
Additionally, it was claimed that certain Chinese nationals had committed illegalities throughout the visa application procedure.
The Court observed that the inquiry was started in 2022 and that the Prosecution Complaint had named 48 accused individuals and mentioned 527 witnesses before granting Rai bail.
“An analysis of 80,000 pages of documents is required. The number of accused has been raised to 53, 15 more witnesses have been called, and an additional 3500 pages of documents have been added to the record, according to a supplemental prosecution complaint that was also submitted on February 19, 2024, it added.
The Court noted that the trial was not anticipated to conclude anytime soon, that Rai was not responsible for the delay, that there were numerous accused parties in the case, that there were thousands of pages of material to evaluate, and that scores of witnesses needed to be questioned.
According to the Court, “the requirements under Section 45 of the PMLA would have to give way to the constitutional mandate of Article 21 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.”
Case Title : HARI OM RAI v. ED
