Liquor scam: Chhattisgarh HC calls for relaxation of PMLA bail provisions, rejects bail for Anwar Dhebar

RAIPUR: In a significant observation, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the rigidity of provisions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) hinders proper case-by-case bail analysis. To better protect citizens' fundamental rights, the legislature should relax this provision to grant courts more discretion in bail decisions.
A Single Bench presided over by Justice Arvind Kumar Verma observed, “The legislature must relax rigid conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA to provide wiggle room to the courts to determine bail on a more case-to-case basis in the interest of upholding fundamental rights of the citizens. This would prevent minor bail cases reaching the apex court as the lower courts are hesitant to oppose inflexible provision. Nevertheless, the court should also recognise the legislature’s wariness towards money laundering and pass orders such that it balances caution with liberty.”
With the above-mentioned observations, the court rejected the bail application of businessman Anwar Dhebar, a key figure alleged to be the orchestrator of a significant liquor scam in Chhattisgarh. The court also cited his deep-rooted involvement in the alleged criminal activities. After extensively reviewing the case records and arguments from both sides, the court concluded that the applicant failed to meet the stringent "twin conditions" required for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.
The case involves nearly 70 accused individuals, with a chargesheet currently filed against 11, including the present applicant. The scheduled offence involves a staggering 457 witnesses, indicating a trial unlikely to conclude in the near future. The defence argued that Section 45(1) of the PMLA effectively reverses the presumption of innocence at the bail stage, imposing disproportionate and excessive conditions that violate Article 21 of the Constitution. It was contended that an accused at this stage can never truly prove their innocence as mandated by the provision.
However, the court prima facie found strong indications of the applicant's involvement in the criminal acts of the liquor syndicate. Evidence suggested his possession of the proceeds of crime, including commissions received from liquor suppliers. The court noted the applicant's alleged role as a "strongman" running the syndicate for political benefactors in association with a high-ranking bureaucrat. He is accused of managing a widespread bribe collection racket related to liquor licences and the illicit sale of unaccounted liquor from state-run shops, alongside the acquisition and concealment of the proceeds of these crimes.
The court acknowledged the Supreme Court's pronouncements on the necessity of objective and fair consideration of material before arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the PMLA. It reiterated the "twin conditions" for bail under Section 45: reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and that they are unlikely to commit further offences while on bail.
While acknowledging previous Supreme Court rulings on the constitutionality of Section 45, the court highlighted the prevailing view that the provision aims to combat the serious crime of money laundering. The legislature's intent, as emphasised in amendments, is to maintain a zero-tolerance policy towards this offence due to its severe implications for financial institutions and national sovereignty.
The court recognised the need for caution and stringency in cases involving money laundering linked to serious offences like terror financing. However, it also acknowledged concerns about the potential violation of accused individuals' rights in less severe cases due to a "one-size-fits-all" approach. The court referred to a past Supreme Court judgment emphasising the consideration of both the seriousness of the crime and the severity of punishment when determining bail.
Despite this, the court found that the rigid nature of Section 45 did not permit the nuanced case-by-case analysis required in this instance. While acknowledging the need for the legislature to potentially relax the provision to provide courts with more discretion and prevent minor bail cases from reaching the apex court due to lower courts' hesitancy against the inflexible rule, the present applicant's alleged involvement was deemed significant.
The court concluded that the applicant was unable to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. Consequently, his bail application was rejected.