Delhi HC grants bail to 3 PFI members, says ED ‘putting the cart before the horse’

The three accused — Parvez Ahmed, president of the Delhi state unit of PFI from 2018-2020, Abdul Muqeet, who was the office secretary of the unit since 2017, and Mohd Ilyas, who was its general secretary since November, 2018 — were allegedly part of a criminal conspiracy wherein the PFI’s office bearers brought in suspicious funds from within the country as well as abroad abroad, which formed part of the proceeds in the crime. The three had actively participated in the anti-CAA protests in Delhi. The ED alleged that more than Rs 60 crore was deposited in the PFI’s bank accounts since 2009 and Rs 32.03 crores was deposited in cash.

The three were arrested by the ED on September 22, 2022.

Justice Jasmeet Singh recorded in the order, “On perusing the Complaint, there is no evidence to show that any scheduled offence has been committed, it is stated that the petitioners participated in the anti-CAA protests in Delhi which culminated in Delhi Riots. Learned counsels for the petitioners have rightly pointed out that in the present case i.e. collection of funds precedes the crime i.e. Delhi Riots. The proceeds of crime has to be generated as a result of criminal activity (scheduled offence). The collection of funds in an illegal way to commit a scheduled offence in future is not an offence of money laundering under PMLA. The funds collected are not proceeds of crime and can be proceeds of crime only when they were generated as a result of scheduled offence. The case set up by the ED is putting the cart before the horse.”

Noting that in the present case the twin conditions under section 45 of PMLA was met and that “prima facie”, the court was “of the view that the offence of money laundering was not made out”, the court ordered for the three’s release on bail.

“Special statutes have stringent conditions for grant of bail but they should not become means to detain the accused without there being any possibility of concluding the trial, expeditiously. Merely charging an accused person under the provisions of these special statutes should not become a punishment in itself which violates Article 21,” the court further recorded while emphasising that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.