In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to Chanpreet Singh Rayat, an accused in a high-profile money laundering case linked to the Delhi Excise Policy Scam. The court emphasized that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must prevail, even if the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, are not met.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, who pronounced the judgment, highlighted that prolonged incarceration before a person is pronounced guilty should not be allowed to become a punishment without trial. “Even if the conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, are not met by the petitioner, the jurisprudence for granting bail is that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his constitutional right of personal liberty,” the court stated.
Background of the Case:
The case against Chanpreet Singh Rayat, registered under ECIR No. HIU-II/14/2022 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), stems from alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy for the year 2021-22. The ED alleged that kickbacks amounting to Rs. 100 crore were paid to leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to secure favorable changes in the policy and create a continuous flow of illegal funds under the guise of profits.
The investigation suggested that a portion of the alleged kickbacks was used for the AAP’s election campaign in Goa, with Chanpreet Singh Rayat allegedly receiving Rs. 45 crore in cash for distribution among vendors, survey workers, and volunteers during the campaign. Rayat was also accused of working closely with other key figures in the case, such as Rajesh Joshi and Vijay Nair.
Legal Issues and Court Observations:
The main legal issue revolved around the stringent twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, which mandate that bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Enforcement Directorate argued that Rayat’s involvement in the alleged money laundering and his role as a key figure in handling the proceeds of crime warranted his continued detention.
However, Justice Bansal Krishna noted that the allegations against Rayat were weak. The court observed that Rayat was only named in the sixth supplementary prosecution complaint filed by the ED, with no direct evidence of his involvement in the earlier complaints. The court also noted that the statements of various witnesses and co-accused under Section 50 of the PMLA, which formed the primary basis of the allegations, were not sufficient to deny bail.
Quoting from the Supreme Court’s rulings in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 595) and Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 632), the High Court reiterated that “prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial.” The court further emphasized that the fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 is superior to statutory restrictions, and “bail is the rule, and refusal is an exception.”
Key Court Observations:
Justice Bansal Krishna remarked, “The petitioner has been behind bars since April 18, 2024, and considering the voluminous nature of the case involving around 69,000 pages of documents and 493 witnesses, the trial is likely to be prolonged. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to liberty.”
The court also noted that other accused in similar circumstances, such as Manish Sisodia, K. Kavitha, and Vijay Nair, had already been granted bail. “Insofar as the role of the petitioner in the present case is concerned, he stands on a better footing than the other co-accused who have been recently granted bail,” the judgment read.
Based on these observations, the court granted bail to Chanpreet Singh Rayat, setting several conditions, including a bail bond of Rs. 5,00,000, regular appearances before the court, surrender of his passport, and a prohibition on leaving the country or tampering with evidence.
