By admin 
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday observed that an accused in a money laundering case cannot be equated with those punishable with death, life imprisonment, ten years or more, such as crimes like murder, rape or dacoity.
Judge Manoj Kumar Ohri said that while dealing with the cases under the PMLA, it is pertinent to keep in mind that except in some exceptional cases, the maximum punishment could be seven years.
The Court reiterated that keeping the accused in custody by using Section 45 PMLA as an instrument of confinement or shackle is impermissible and said:
“The accused in a money laundering case cannot be equated with those punishable with death, life imprisonment, ten years or more, such as offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, etc. ”
The Court made these comments while granting bail to Hari Om Rai, director of mobile company Lava International, in a money laundering case involving smartphone maker Vivo.
ED alleged that Rai had sent invitations to Chinese nationals and they had committed the predicate offense of using forged permits to open bank accounts and obtain DINs during their stay in India.
It was further alleged that some Chinese nationals had committed irregularities in obtaining visas.
The Court granted bail to Rai, noting that the investigation had started in 2022 and the prosecution’s complaint had named 48 suspects and cited 527 witnesses.
“There are 80,000 pages of documents that need to be analyzed. An additional indictment, dated February 19, 2024, has also been filed, increasing the number of suspects to 53, citing 15 additional witnesses and recording an additional 3,500 pages of documents,” the report said.
The Court noted that there were multiple suspects in the case, thousands of pages of evidence needed to be reviewed, dozens of witnesses needed to be interviewed, and the trial was not expected to end at any point. near future and the delay was not Rai’s fault.
“If there is no possibility of the trial being completed within a reasonable time and the accused is in jail for a long period depending on the nature of the charges, the terms of Section 45 of the PMLA should give way to the constitutional mandate of Article 21,” the Court said.
Title: HARI OM RAI v. ED
Click here to read the order