Facts
The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding a money-laundering case (ECIR/STF/17/2022) initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED)
Source reference: p. 1The case originated from an NIA FIR alleging that the Popular Front of India (PFI) conspired to raise funds for terrorist activities
Source reference: p. 2, para. 7The ED alleged that the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) acted as a front for laundering PFI’s proceeds of crime
Source reference: p. 3, para. 9The petitioner, a physical education trainer for PFI, was accused of "layering" proceeds by depositing cash into third-party accounts (Rajik Mohammad Anifa and Mohd. Rila) to be transferred to SDPI as legitimate donations
Source reference: p. 3, para. 10; p. 7-8He was arrested on March 20, 2025, and named as Accused No. 30 in the 7th Supplementary Prosecution Complaint
Source reference: p. 3, para. 11Issues
1. Whether the petitioner satisfied the "twin conditions" for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, considering the specific nature of his involvement and the quantum of funds
Source reference: p. 10, para. 152. Whether the continued pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner was warranted given the projected length of the trial and the bail granted to co-accused persons
Source reference: p. 14, para. 24-25Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 45 of the PMLA, which mandates "twin conditions" for bail—that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence while on bail
Source reference: p. 10, para. 15It utilized the proviso to Section 45(1), which allows for a less rigorous application of these conditions if the relevant amount is less than one crore rupees
Source reference: p. 12, para. 20The court also relied on the definition of "proceeds of crime" under Section 3 of the PMLA, emphasizing that funds must be linked to a scheduled offence
Source reference: p. 12, para. 21and referenced the principle of parity and the right to personal liberty in cases of prolonged incarceration
Source reference: p. 14, para. 24-25Reasoning
The court found that the ED failed to prima facie establish how the funds collected by SDPI constituted "proceeds of crime" derived from a scheduled offence
Source reference: p. 12, para. 21It noted that the petitioner’s transactions (totaling ₹3.15 lacs) were minuscule compared to the total ₹32.94 crores alleged, and fell significantly below the ₹1 crore threshold in the Section 45 proviso, warranting a "watered-down" application of the twin conditions
Source reference: p. 11, para. 19; p. 12, para. 20The court observed that the petitioner’s role as a trainer and his contact details using "PFI" were not inherently incriminating
Source reference: p. 10, para. 17Furthermore, the court highlighted that the petitioner had been in custody for over 14 months while the trial remained at the stage of arguments on charge, involving 250 witnesses and 600 documents, making a swift conclusion unlikely
Source reference: p. 14, para. 24Holding
The court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to regular bail
It held that the petitioner met the requirements of Section 45 of the PMLA, citing the small quantum of alleged laundering, the delay in arraying him as an accused, the principle of parity with co-accused Moideen Kutty K, and the length of his pre-trial incarceration
Source reference: p. 14, para. 25Bail was granted subject to a personal bond of ₹50,000, surrender of passport, and conditions to prevent witness tampering
Source reference: p. 15, para. 26Original Court PDF
Wahidur RahmanvsDirectorate Of Enforcement
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in