‘Sick & Infirm’ Accused Entitled To Relief Without Satisfying Twin Test: Delhi HC Grants Bail To Amit Katyal In PMLA Case

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Amit Katyal, a close associate of RJD (Rashtriya Janata Dal) leader Lalu Prasad Yadav in Land for Job Scam related case.

The accused preferred an application under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) read with Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking bail.

A Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “In this regard, it may also be referred that the petitioner has shown his chronic physical ailment in detail which reflect that he can be terms as a person in the category of ‘sick and infirm’ entitling him to bail without satisfying the Twin Test of Section 45.”

The Bench said that, while the ED (Enforcement Directorate) has sought to show the role of the accused over a period of time in facilitating the laundering of the money generated by the main accused persons/beneficiaries, but pertaining to this particular case of land scam, the only allegation is confined to one piece of land valuing 10.83 lacs.

“In the light of the specific case of the ED, it has to be held that it gets covered in the proviso and therefore, the Twin Test would not be applicable”, it added.

Senior Advocates Geeta Luthra and Vikas Pahwa represented the petitioner/accused while Advocates (Special Counsels) Zoheb Hossain and Manish Jain represented the respondent/ED.

In this case, the petitioner/accused was arrested in a case on the allegations that he had projected and concealed the property which was a proceed of crime in relation to a Scheduled Offence and was a beneficiary thereof. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered an FIR under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 11, 12, and 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) against the then Railway Minister, Lalu Prasad Yadav and others for entering into a criminal conspiracy to abuse the official position in order to obtain pecuniary benefits in the form of land parcels being transferred to his family members and companies thereof in return for appointment to the post of Substitute under the various zones of Indian Railways, commonly known as Job for Land Scam.

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “The case of the petitioner is covered by the proviso thereby exempting him from satisfying the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 for grant of bail. … Even otherwise, it is the respondent itself which has stated that the transfers made in the year 2010 till 2014 of the Company were not reflected in the books of accounts and subsequently, the accounts have been rectified in the year 2017-18 when the transactions were questioned by the Income Tax Department.”

The Court remarked that, he is not a flight risk, as he has all throughout been joining the investigations and at no point of time tried to evade the summons or to join the investigations. It said that there has been no endeavour him to tamper with the evidence which is essentially documentary in nature or to influence the witnesses and that the Triple Test for grant of bail is, therefore, satisfied by him.

“In the end, it may be observed that the investigations vis-à-vis him already stands concluded and the Prosecution Complaint stand filed. He is in judicial custody since 10.11.2023. The trial may take long to get concluded. No purpose for his further detention in judicial custody has been made out”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court granted bail to the accused on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10 lakhs with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge/Trial Court.

Cause Title- Amit Katyal v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:7113)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocates Geeta Luthra, Vikas Pahwa, Advocates Bina Gupta, Gurpreet Singh, Bakul Jain, Jatin S. Sethi, Namisha Jain, Nancy Shamim, Aakansha, Sheena Tauqli, Aadarsh Kothari, Manit Walia, Shivam Bansal, Aayushee Gautam, and Rishabh Dahiya.

Respondent: Advocates Zoheb Hossain, Manish Jain, Vivek Gurnani, Vivek Guurav, Kanishk Maurya, Pranjal Tripathi, and Kartik Sabharwal.

Click here to read/download the Judgment