Post-Demonetisation Money Laundering Case: Delhi HC Grants Bail to Advocate Rohit Tandon [Read Order]

Advocate Rohit Tandon who was detained in an alleged money laundering case after demonetisation was granted bail by the Delhi High Court.

Rohit Tandon was arrested on 28th December 2016, on the allegation that he in conspiracy with the co-accused persons devised a plan for conversion of demonetised currency into monetized currency by depositing cash into the accounts of various companies in Kotak Mahindra Bank where cash in hand was available in the books of accounts and in furtherance of the conspiracy, demand drafts were issued in the names of fictitious persons from the said accounts.

During a post demonetization raid, an amount of Rs.13.6 Crores were found in his office. It was alleged that he had conspired with some bank officials in converting black money. All the bail applications filed by him, since his arrest were dismissed by the Courts. The Supreme Court had while relying on the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India rejected his bail application and held that that the scope of Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Act, 2002 was no more res-integra and that the Court at the stage of considering the application for grant of bail, shall consider the question from the angle as to whether the accused was possessed with the requisite mens rea. A twin condition was devised by the Court which were:- (1) That the prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application for bail; and (2) That the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused person is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

However, the Supreme Court had in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India and Ors. set aside the twin conditions imposed under Section 45 PMLA on 23rd November 2017 and declared that Section 45 (1) PMLA in so far as it imposed two further conditions for release on bail to be unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court noted that in all matters before it in which bail has been denied because of presence of twin conditions contained in Section 45 PMLA would now go back to respective Courts which denied bail and the respective Courts were directed to hear the applications on merits without application of the twin conditions contained in Section 45 PMLA.

The bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta noted that the offence punishable under Section 4 PMLA provides for the maximum sentence of imprisonment for seven years with a minimum sentence for the imprisonment of three years and that the Petitioners have been in custody for more than one year and 4 months. The Court also took note of the inordinate delay for the trial to begin.

Granting bail to Advocate Rohit Tandon and Raj Kumar Goel, the court directed them to furnish a personal bond of in the sum of Rs.5 lakhs each with two sureties of the like amount each. The Court also asked them not to leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court.