Court cites non-compliance with stringent twin conditions under PMLA, emphasizing the distinct nature of economic offenses.
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Ram Singh in a high-profile money laundering case registered by the Directorate of Enforcement. The court, presided over by Justice Madhu Jain, pronounced the verdict on August 18, 2026, emphasizing the stringent conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) that must be satisfied for such relief.
The case against Ram Singh stems from allegations involving deep-rooted conspiracies and substantial financial transactions linked to proceeds of crime. The Directorate of Enforcement has accused Singh of being a key conspirator in laundering money derived from various scheduled offenses, including cheating and fraudulent transactions involving SARFAESI properties.
The court highlighted that Ram Singh failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, which are critical in bail considerations for economic offenses. These conditions require the court to be convinced that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offenses and is unlikely to commit any further offenses while on bail. Justice Jain pointed out that the material on record, including financial trails and statements under Section 50 of the PMLA, sufficiently connected Singh to the alleged proceeds of crime.
The judgment also addressed Singh's non-appearance in response to summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA, noting that written replies through counsel could not substitute for the personal appearance required by law. This conduct, according to the court, indicated an attempt to evade the inquiry process initiated by the Enforcement Directorate.
The court further observed that the anticipatory bail could not be justified merely on the basis of interim protection granted to Singh in the predicate offenses. Proceedings under the PMLA are distinct and independent, and protection in predicate offenses does not automatically extend to money laundering charges.
The judgment emphasized the serious nature of economic offenses, which affect the country's economic health, necessitating a stringent approach in bail considerations. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law in cases involving economic offenses.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 45 of PMLA dismissed due to non-satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA - Economic offences are distinct and require a stringent approach in bail considerations.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Ram Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2965131
