Judgment Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J. :- Complaint Case No. COMA/3/2023 16.06.2023 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 PREDICATE OFFENCE: FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 13 02.11.2020 Vigilance Bureau, FS-1, District SAS Nagar Mohali 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 471, 120-B IPC and 7, 7-A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 1. The petitioner, who has been in custody since 08.09.2023, in the FIR captioned above, registered by the Enforcement Directorate, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] seeking bail. 2. Petitioner’s counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions, including the declaration of assets by the petitioner and family members, and is also voluntarily agreeable to the condition that till the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner shall keep only one mobile number, which is mentioned in AADHAR card, if any, and within fifteen days undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The petitioner contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 3. The counsel for the Enforcement Directorate [ED] opposes the bail and states that considering the allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to any bail. The ED’s counsel further contends that given the express bar of section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 [PMLA], this court can grant bail only when the accused meets the twin conditions, which he has not explained. 4. The facts of the case are that the Assistant Director of the Directorate of Enforcement [ED] filed a complaint based on predicate offence, which was FIR No.13 dated 02.11.2020 under Sections 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 7, 7-A of Prevention of Corruption Act against Varinder Pal Singh Dhoot and other persons. In the said FIR, allegations were that the revenue officials misused their official position and wrongly allocated shamlat land amongst the residents of village Seonk. Although shamlat land has to be distributed by the revenue authorities as per order dated 01.07.2016 and mutation no. 1761, some beneficiaries were allocated extra land, and some were given less. In some instances, the land was given to those who were not eligible. Varinder Pal Singh Dhoot is the kingpin, and the petitioner is one of the main accused. Although shamlat land has to be distributed by the revenue authorities as per order dated 01.07.2016 and mutation no. 1761, some beneficiaries were allocated extra land, and some were given less. In some instances, the land was given to those who were not eligible. Varinder Pal Singh Dhoot is the kingpin, and the petitioner is one of the main accused. Allegations are of receipt of money from property dealers, and the accused allegedly received a massive amount of money by misusing the government machinery. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings. 6. It would be appropriate to refer to the complaint dated 16.06.2023 filed under Section 44 read with Section 45 of the PMLA for the commission of offence defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of PMLA by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zone, Punjab. In the complaint, 13 persons have been arraigned as accused, including the petitioner, Hartej Singh, who is cited as accused No.10. The complainant claims to be an authorized person to file the complaint via an authorization issued by the Government of India. 7. Just like a hidden portion of an ice burg, the roots of this complaint trace back to the predicate offence registered in FIR No. 13 dated 02.11.2020, under Sections 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 7, 7-A of Prevention of Corruption Act in Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Mohali against eleven persons, in which the petitioner was not initially named. Briefly, the main accused, who were the revenue officials, in connivance with property dealers and beneficiaries, not only allotted surplus land to some but also to those who were not even entitled, and in the process, some genuine beneficiaries were not allocated any land to which they were legally entitled. Based on such allegation, the total irregularities resulted in a difference of 99 acres, 4 Kanals, and 14.32 Marlas of land. Allegations were that Iqbal Singh, Patwari (accused no.3); Raghbir Singh, Kanungo (accused no.2); Varinder Pal Singh Dhoot, Naib Tehsildar (accused no.1); Shyam Lal, property dealer (accused no.5); and Gurnam Singh, Lambardar (accused no.4) were primarily responsible for all the misdeeds. 8. Based on this predicate offence, i.e., the hidden portion of an iceberg, the investigation commenced into the present scheduled offence. 8. Based on this predicate offence, i.e., the hidden portion of an iceberg, the investigation commenced into the present scheduled offence. Since there were allegations of receipt of money and its laundering, such investigation was required to ascertain money laundering and confiscation of property derived or obtained directly or indirectly or which was involved in the process or activity connected with the proceed of crime, including its concealment, possession, acquisition or used in any manner in its tainting. On 10.08.2021, searches were conducted, and massive documents were seized, as mentioned in para no.5 of the complaint. Even statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 17 of the PMLA. The list of the property acquired by money laundering or tainted money or proceeds of crime has been mentioned in para no.8, and it is valued at Rs.8,02,33,803/-. 9. The evidence collected against the petitioner is that although he was not allotted any share of shamlat land, one Gurtej Singh had 2400 shares. The petitioner signed as Gurtej Singh on General Power of Attorney, giving rights of land to Ram Krishan. Misusing the said Power of Attorney, the rights of the land belonging to Gurtej Singh, Pal Singh, and Ram Krishan were illegally given to Balbir Singh (accused no.6). Allegations against the petitioner are that he received Rs.50,000/- from Shyam Lal (accused no.5) for signing the said Power of Attorney for 2400 shares of which he was not entitled. 10. Out of a massive scam of Rs.17 crores, the main accused got the benefit of around Rs.15.73 crores, involving unexplained money of around Rs.8 crores, and the benefit the petitioner got was just Rs.50,000/-. Arrested for this violation and consequent illicit money, the petitioner has been in custody since 08.09.2023, i.e., for more than three months. 11. Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] requires satisfying the mandatory twin conditions before a person can be granted bail. The first condition is that the Public Prosecutor has been allowed to oppose the application. In the present case, not only was proper opportunity given, but they filed a reply, and their counsel was heard. As such, the first condition of S. 45 (1) has been complied with. The first condition is that the Public Prosecutor has been allowed to oppose the application. In the present case, not only was proper opportunity given, but they filed a reply, and their counsel was heard. As such, the first condition of S. 45 (1) has been complied with. The second condition is that where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Regarding the second condition, although there is evidence of the petitioner taking the benefit of Rs.50,000/- by giving a power of attorney for the transfer of his 2400 shares in the shamlat land, which, in fact, he never had, he is also in custody for 03 months for benefitting a sum of Rs.50,000/. 12. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, a three-member bench of Supreme Court holds, [131]. It is important to note that the twin conditions provided under Section 45 of the 2002 Act, though restrict the right of the accused to grant of bail, but it cannot be said that the conditions provided under Section 45 impose absolute restraint on the grant of bail. The discretion vests in the Court which is not arbitrary or irrational but judicial, guided by the principles of law as provided under Section 45 of the 2002 Act. While dealing with a similar provision prescribing twin conditions in MCOCA, this Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma, (2005) 5 SCC 294 , held as under: “44. The wording of Section 21(4), in our opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that the court must arrive at a positive finding that the applicant for bail has not committed an offence under the Act. If such a construction is placed, the court intending to grant bail must arrive at a finding that the applicant has not committed such an offence. In such an event, it will be impossible for the prosecution to obtain a judgment of conviction of the applicant. Such cannot be the intention of the legislature. Section 21(4) of MCOCA, therefore, must be construed reasonably. It must be so construed that the court is able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. Such cannot be the intention of the legislature. Section 21(4) of MCOCA, therefore, must be construed reasonably. It must be so construed that the court is able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. Similarly, the Court will be required to record a finding as to the possibility of his committing a crime after grant of bail. However, such an offence in future must be an offence under the Act and not any other offence. Since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of an accused, the court must necessarily consider this aspect of the matter having regard to the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence. 45. It is, furthermore, trite that for the purpose of considering an application for grant of bail, although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned, the order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind at least in serious cases as to why the applicant has been granted or denied the privilege of bail. 46. The duty of the court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. However, while dealing with a special statute like MCOCA having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the court may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that the materials collected against the accused during the investigation may not justify a judgment of conviction. The findings recorded by the court while granting or refusing bail undoubtedly would be tentative in nature, which may not have any bearing on the merit of the case and the trial court would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial, without in any manner being prejudiced thereby” We are in agreement with the observation made by the Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma. The Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the Court based on available material on record is required. The Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the Court based on available material on record is required. The Court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of Trial Court. The Court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the Trial Court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial. As explained by this Court in Nimmagadda Prasad [Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466 ], the words 635 Supra at Footnote No.275 (also at used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are “reasonable grounds for believing” which means the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. [145]. … The provision in the form of Section 436A of the 1973 Code, as has now come into being is in recognition of the constitutional right of the accused regarding speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. For, it is a sanguine hope of every accused, who is in custody in particular, that he/she should be tried expeditiously - so as to uphold the tenets of speedy justice. If the trial cannot proceed even after the accused has undergone one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment provided by law, there is no reason to deny him this lesser relief of considering his prayer for release on bail or bond, as the case may be, with appropriate conditions, including to secure his/her presence during the trial. 13. Section 371 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act], is identical to S. 452 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA]. 13. Section 371 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act], is identical to S. 452 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA]. The only difference is that S. 37 of the NDPS Act is much more stringent than S. 45 of PMLA because S. 37 attracts when the quantity is commercial, when the minimum sentence that the courts can impose cannot is ten years, when the cultivator has embezzled the opium, or where external dealings were involved, and somebody finances illicit trafficking and harbourers offenders. However, S. 45 of PMLA applies entirely to all offences, but under Section 4 of the PMLA Act, the minimum sentence prescribed is three years and a maximum of ten years, which makes it lenient compared to the application of similar provisions to the offences under the NDPS Act. Thus, Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to cases where the minimum sentence is ten years, contrary to the minimum three in PMLA. 14. In Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Crl.) No(s). 6690 of 2022, decided on 25-01-2023, Supreme Court holds, [3]. It appears that some of the occupants of the ‘Honda City’ Car including Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya have since been released on regular bail. It is true that the quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial in nature and the provisions of Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily be attracted. However, in the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years, we are satisfied that the conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be dispensed with at this stage, more so when the trial is yet to commence though the charges have been framed. [4]. For the reasons stated above but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. 15. In Hasanujjaman & ors. v. The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No(s).3221/2023, decided on 04-05-2023, Supreme Court holds, [2]. The allegations are that when the police party intercepted the petitioners along with another person riding on two motorcycles, they were found in possession of codeine phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl bottles loaded in two nylon bags. 15. In Hasanujjaman & ors. v. The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No(s).3221/2023, decided on 04-05-2023, Supreme Court holds, [2]. The allegations are that when the police party intercepted the petitioners along with another person riding on two motorcycles, they were found in possession of codeine phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl bottles loaded in two nylon bags. During the search, 115 bottles (100 ml. each) of phensedyl were recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners. They were arrested on the spot and have been in custody for more than one year and four months. [4]. The investigation is complete; chargesheet has been filed, though the charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some reasonable time, regardless of the direction issued by the High Court to conclude the same within one year from the date of framing of charges. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. There is, thus, substantial compliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 16. In the present case, the amount attributed to the petitioner is Rs. 50,000/- and there is no allegation of money laundering except receiving the financial benefit of Rs. 50,000/-; as such, he is also entitled to the benefit of the proviso to S. 45(1) of PMLA. 17. As per paragraph 10 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 08.09.2023. In the present case, considering the custody of more than 03 months and the benefit which the petitioner took was just Rs.50,000/-, it would be a perversity of justice if this Court continues further pre-trial incarceration. Thus, in the light of the above discussions, and given the amount attributed to the petitioner viz-a-viz pre-trial custody and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability of further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. 18. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92], (2020) 5 SCC 1 , Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions. 19. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92], (2020) 5 SCC 1 , Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions. 19. Without commenting on the case’s merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. 20. In Madhu Tanwar. v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21], CRM-M-27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed, [10] The exponential growth in technology and artificial intelligence has transformed identification techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recognition are incredibly sophisticated and pervasive. Impersonation, as we know it traditionally, has virtually become impossible. Thus, the remedy lies that whenever a judge or an officer believes that the accused might be a flight risk or has a history of fleeing from justice, then in such cases, appropriate conditions can be inserted that all the expenditure that shall be incurred to trace them, shall be recovered from such person, and the State shall have a lien over their assets to make good the loss. [21] In this era when the knowledge revolution has just begun, to keep pace with exponential and unimaginable changes the technology has brought to human lives, it is only fitting that the dependence of the accused on surety is minimized by giving alternative options. Furthermore, there should be no insistence to provide permanent addresses when people either do not have permanent abodes or intend to re-locate. 21. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, in the following terms: (a). Petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/); AND (b) To give one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the satisfaction of the concerned court, and in case of non-availability, to any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned officer/court must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court. OR (b). Petitioner to hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit for Rs. Before accepting the surety, the concerned officer/court must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court. OR (b). Petitioner to hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automatic renewal of the principal and the interest reverting to the linked account, made in favor of the ‘Chief Judicial Magistrate’ of the concerned district, or blocking the aforesaid amount in favour of the concerned ‘Chief Judicial Magistrate’. Said fixed deposit or blocking funds can be from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or from any of the well-established and stable private sector banks. In case the bankers are not willing to make a Fixed Deposit in such eventuality it shall be permissible for the petitioner to prepare an account payee demand draft favouring concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for a similar amount. (c). Such court shall have a lien over the funds until the case’s closure or discharged by substitution, or up to the expiry of the period mentioned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the entire amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor. (d). The petitioner is to also execute a bond for attendance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presentation of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declarations made in the bail petition and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and of this bail order. (e). While furnishing personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available), when the court attesting the bonds thinks appropriate or considers the accused as a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 22. The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence. 23. The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence. 23. Petitioner to comply with their undertaking made in the bail petition, made before this court through counsel as reflected at the beginning of this order. If the petitioner fails to comply with any of such undertakings, then on this ground alone, the bail might be canceled, and the victim/complainant may file any such application for the cancellation of bail, and the State shall file the said application. 24. The petitioner is directed not to keep more than one prepaid SIM, i.e., one prepaid mobile phone number, till the conclusion of the trial; however, this restriction is only on prepaid SIMs [mobile numbers] and not on post-paid connections or landline numbers. The petitioner must comply with this condition within fifteen days of release from prison. The concerned DySP shall also direct all the telecom service providers to deactivate all prepaid SIM cards and prepaid mobile numbers issued to the petitioner, except the one that is mentioned as the primary number/ default number linked with the AADHAAR card and further that till the no objection from the concerned SHO, the mobile service providers shall not issue second pre-paid SIM/ mobile number in the petitioner’s name. Since, as on date, in India, there are only four prominent mobile service providers, namely BSNL, Airtel, Vodafone-Idea, and Reliance Jio, any other telecom service provider are directed to comply with the directions of the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, issued in this regard and disable all prepaid mobile phone numbers issued in the name of the petitioner, except the main number/default number linked with AADHAR, by taking such information from the petitioner’s AADHAR details or any other source, for which they shall be legally entitled by this order. This condition shall continue till the completion of the trial or closure of the case, whichever is earlier. This condition shall continue till the completion of the trial or closure of the case, whichever is earlier. In Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 INSC 655 , [para 45], while granting bail under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002, Supreme Court had directed imposition of the similar condition, which reads as follows, “(d) Both the appellants shall use only one Mobile Phone each, during the time they remain on bail and shall inform the Investigating Officer of the NIA, their respective mobile numbers.” 25. During the trial’s pendency, if the petitioner repeats or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condition as stipulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for cancellation of this bail. It shall further be open for any investigating agency to bring it to the notice of the Court seized of the subsequent application that the accused was earlier cautioned not to indulge in criminal activities. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and after that in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of conditions. 26. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this Court are to endeavour that the accused tries to reform, does not repeat the offence and to provide an opportunity to the victim to consider legal remedies for recovery of the amount. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions, must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.” 27. Any Advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order in any language that the petitioner understands. 28. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.” 27. Any Advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order in any language that the petitioner understands. 28. If the petitioner finds bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition. 29. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 30. In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior. 31. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. Petition allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.