Absence of Key Managerial Role and Direct Evidence Leads to Bail in Money Laundering Case – Delhi HC Grants Bail to Sanjay Kansal in ED Case
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today granted bail to Sanjay Kansal, who was arrested in connection with a money laundering case involving fictitious firms and bogus transactions linked to a large-scale bank fraud. The court’s decision pivoted on the absence of direct evidence tying Kansal to the knowledge or intent of laundering money, given his non-managerial role in the accused company, M/s Shree Bankey Bihari Exports Ltd. (SBBEL).
Background and Legal Arguments:
Sanjay Kansal was implicated as part of an Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigation into money laundering through fictitious transactions and paper firms purportedly used to siphon off funds. Kansal, the nephew of a primary accused, was portrayed by the ED as having facilitated these sham transactions through firms allegedly under his control.
Arguing for bail, Kansal’s legal team highlighted the lack of direct involvement or knowledge of the laundering process, pointing out his peripheral role in the company and the manipulated nature of evidence against him. They stressed the disparity in the treatment of similarly placed co-accused, none of whom were arrested, raising concerns about parity and fairness in legal proceedings.
Court’s Assessment and Findings:
Justice Amit Sharma, in his judgment, underscored the fundamental principles of bail assessment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), stressing the importance of considering the accused’s role and the nature of evidence. The court noted the “broad probabilities” suggesting that Kansal might not have had the requisite ‘mens rea’ (criminal intent) necessary for the offence of money laundering.
The judgment meticulously detailed the submissions and countered the allegations placed by the ED. It pointed out the procedural inconsistencies and the reliance on statements under Section 50 of the PMLA, which were deemed insufficient to deny bail. The court observed that Kansal was merely following instructions from the key managerial personnel and was not privy to the overarching conspiracy or financial dealings of the company that would suggest his involvement in the crime.
Decision and Conditions for Bail:
Granting bail, the court set forth several conditions, including a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the same amount. Kansal is restricted from leaving the country without court permission and must maintain operational communication lines with the investigating officers.
Implications of the Judgment:
This decision is pivotal, especially in highlighting the judiciary’s role in balancing the scales of justice by considering the individual roles and the evidence against accused persons in complex money laundering cases. It reaffirms the principles of justice where bail is not denied merely on the basis of assumptions, and each case is assessed on its own merits, safeguarding the rights of the accused against unwarranted detention.
Date of Decision: May 9, 2024
Sanjay Kansal vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
