PARVEZ AHMED [Petitioner] Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [Respondent]
BAIL APPLN. 1859/2024
(Delivered by JASMEET SINGH, J.)
The Delhi High Court, presided by Justice Jasmeet Singh, granted bail to applicants accused of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), subject to specific conditions. The case involved allegations of raising and utilizing funds for unlawful activities linked to the Popular Front of India (PFI), a banned organization.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated its case based on an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) connected to a National Investigation Agency (NIA) FIR under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The ED accused the petitioners, senior PFI office bearers in Delhi, of laundering proceeds of crime generated through suspicious donations. Allegedly, approximately ₹60 crore, including ₹32.03 crore in cash, was deposited in PFI accounts since 2009. The funds, claimed to be for legitimate purposes, were purportedly used for anti-CAA protests and other activities that culminated in the Delhi riots of February 2020.
Each petitioner’s role was highlighted: one was the Delhi State Unit President managing fundraising and public relations, another the general secretary handling donations and outreach, and the office secretary managing local collections and creating fraudulent receipts.
The Court noted that for an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, there must be proceeds of crime resulting from criminal activity. However, the ED’s claim that funds were collected illegally and used to commit future scheduled offences did not meet the criteria of “proceeds of crime” under PMLA.
The Court observed that the collection of funds preceded the alleged criminal activity (Delhi riots), and there was no evidence of the funds being generated as a result of a scheduled offence. The ED’s argument, described as “putting the cart before the horse,” failed to demonstrate the petitioners’ dominion or control over alleged proceeds of crime.
Additionally, the Court emphasized that stringent conditions for bail under special statutes like PMLA, UAPA, and others must not override fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court granted bail on the following terms that Petitioners to furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety each; they must not leave the country without court permission and surrender their passports; Petitioners must provide active contact numbers and addresses to the investigating officer (IO) and notify any changes; They are prohibited from contacting prosecution witnesses, tampering with evidence, or engaging in unlawful activities and Petitioners must cooperate with the investigation and attend court as required. The Court found that prima facie, the allegations under PMLA were not substantiated, and granted bail while ensuring safeguards to prevent prejudice to ongoing investigations. This decision underscores the need to balance strict statutory provisions with constitutional rights.