New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, in a detailed judgment delivered by Justice Girish Kathpalia, granted bail to several accused in a money laundering case linked to an alleged racket involving spurious anti-cancer drugs.
The Court not only examined the merits of the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act but also raised serious concerns about media reporting during the pendency of the proceedings.
At the outset, the Court took note of a series of newspaper articles published during the hearing of the bail applications, observing that the reports appeared to reflect questions posed by the Court and disclosed alleged WhatsApp chats without redaction.
The Court cautioned that any attempt to influence judicial proceedings through such publications would amount to a grave assault on the independence of the judiciary, though it refrained from making definitive findings in the absence of conclusive material.
The case stems from a March 2024 investigation by the Delhi Police into a suspected syndicate involved in manufacturing and selling fake cancer medicines. During a raid in Moti Nagar, authorities allegedly found individuals refilling empty vials labelled as expensive anti-cancer drugs. This led to registration of offences under the IPC, following which the Enforcement Directorate initiated proceedings under the PMLA, alleging the generation of proceeds of crime through the sale of spurious medicines.
While considering the bail applications, the Court analysed the stringent twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, which require the Court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
The Court emphasised that these conditions must be assessed on the basis of credible material and not mere allegations.
A key aspect of the ruling was the Court’s rejection of reliance on statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA. It held that statements made by the accused while in custody of the investigating agency could not be treated as voluntary and would be hit by protections under the Evidence Act. The Court observed that such statements appeared uniform and lacked credibility, thereby weakening the prosecution’s case at the bail stage.
The Court also examined WhatsApp chats relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate and found them to be routine business communications between persons engaged in pharmaceutical trade. It held that such material, without more, could not justify denial of liberty.
The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts required in a PMLA case. It noted that there was insufficient material to show a clear link between the alleged proceeds of crime and the predicate offence. The Court stressed that the presumption under PMLA can arise only after these foundational facts are demonstrated.
Highlighting serious gaps in investigation, the Court pointed out that no inquiry was conducted into how empty vials were sourced from hospitals, nor were doctors, pharmacists, or end-users examined. It also noted that forensic analysis showed that several of the seized vials contained genuine drugs, raising further doubts about the prosecution’s case.
The Court further observed that individual financial transactions attributed to the accused were relatively small and that some of the accused were already on bail in the predicate offence, while others were not even chargesheeted. It also took note of the prolonged incarceration of the accused and the likelihood of further delay in trial.
In conclusion, while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, the Court held that gravity alone cannot justify continued detention in the absence of credible supporting material. Finding that the statutory requirements under the PMLA were not satisfied, the Court granted bail, underscoring the importance of safeguarding personal liberty even in cases involving serious economic offences.
