Even Behind Bars, He Orchestrated Laundering of Crores: Telangana High Court Slams PMLA Accused, Denies Bail in ₹800 Crore Fraud

“Bail Is Not a Matter of Course in Money Laundering Cases — Gravity of Offence and Risk of Further Laundering Outweigh Personal Liberty” - In a powerful ruling Telangana High Court refused to grant bail to the Managing Director of Sahiti Infratech Venture India Pvt. Ltd., who faces serious charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for allegedly defrauding homebuyers to the tune of over ₹800 crores.

Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, dismissing the bail application, remarked: “If the petitioner is released on bail, he will interfere with the investigation which is aimed at quantifying and attaching the remaining proceeds of crime.”

Taking serious note of the petitioner’s conduct — including use of a mobile phone in custody and continued laundering through family members — the Court held that the stringent bar under Section 45 of the PMLA squarely applied.

A Fraud of Massive Scale and Persistent Evasion: Court Unmoved by Pleas for Liberty
The case stems from complaints by over 240 homebuyers, who paid ₹72.81 crores to the petitioner’s company under a pre-launch housing scheme that ultimately collapsed. Investigation revealed a much larger financial scam, spanning several projects, with proceeds of crime exceeding ₹800 crores.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) seized properties worth only ₹161.5 crores so far, prompting a deeper ongoing investigation.

Rejecting the petitioner’s claim to liberty, Justice Rao observed: “The right to bail must be balanced against the compelling public interest in preserving the integrity of the financial system.”

Noting that the petitioner attempted to produce forged medical certificates to avoid investigation, and misused judicial custody to further transfer illicit funds, the Court commented: “The petitioner’s conduct reveals an entrenched criminal intent — bail in such a situation would embolden further laundering and frustrate the ongoing investigation.”

“Statutory Bail Under Section 167(2) CrPC Is Not Available After Complaint Is Filed”
The petitioner had pleaded for statutory bail, arguing that the investigation was not completed in time. However, the Court categorically rejected this plea: “The Enforcement Directorate filed its complaint on 05.11.2024 and cognizance was taken on 04.12.2024. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Section 167(2) of CrPC.”

The Court explained that the filing of a complaint under PMLA satisfies the requirement of investigation completion, thereby nullifying any claim for statutory bail based on delay.

Gravity of Allegations Cannot Be Ignored: “Proceeds of Crime Were Actively Moved Even From Jail”
The High Court noted with particular alarm that:
•    While in custody, the petitioner was caught with a mobile phone, illegally communicating with his associates.
•    Funds were withdrawn by his daughter-in-law and passed along under his instructions.
•    Forged documents were used to evade investigation.

The Court pointed out: “The movement of proceeds of crime while the petitioner was behind bars demonstrates that he has the capacity and intent to obstruct justice.”
Hence, the conditions necessary for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA — that there should be reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not reoffend — were not satisfied.

 “PMLA Is a Statute to Preserve National Financial Integrity”
Relying on recent judgments such as Kanhaiya Prasad and Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda, Justice Rao stressed: “Money laundering poses a significant threat to the nation’s financial sovereignty — courts must scrutinize bail pleas under PMLA with the highest caution.”

Thus, casual or lenient approaches to bail in serious money laundering cases, the Court said, are unacceptable.
Concluding a thorough and unsparing analysis, the Telangana High Court declared: “Taking into consideration the facts, the gravity of the offence, and the conduct of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail.”

Accordingly, the criminal petition was dismissed, reaffirming that personal liberty must yield when it endangers the public interest and the administration of justice in economic offences.
Justice Rao’s judgment once again highlights the judiciary’s growing resolve to deal with financial crimes with an iron hand under the rigors of the PMLA.

Date of Decision: April 16, 2025