Money laundering accused can’t be equated with murder, rape accused: Delhi HC
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, while granting bail to Hari Om Rai, Managing Director of Lava International, in a money laundering case linked to Chinese smartphone maker Vivo, remarked that money laundering charges could not be equated with heinous offences such as murder, rape, or dacoity, which carry severe punishments like death or life imprisonment. Rai had been in custody since his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in October last year.
“Section 45 of the PMLA does not create an absolute prohibition on the grant of bail. When the trial is unlikely to conclude in a reasonable time and the accused is incarcerated for long, constitutional safeguards under Article 21 must prevail,” said Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri.
Rai was granted bail on a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh and one surety of the same amount. The court noted the lengthy trial process, involving multiple accused, voluminous evidence, and several witnesses, as a key factor in its decision. “The trial is at a nascent stage, and the other accused have already been granted bail,” the court remarked. Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, representing Rai, argued that prolonged incarceration was unjustified as the allegations pertained to corporate transactions rather than violent crimes. The court, agreeing, stated, “The twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were satisfied in this case.”
The ED, however, had opposed the bail, alleging that Vivo-India illegally transferred Rs 62,476 crore to China to evade Indian taxes, causing economic harm to the country. The agency had raided Vivo and its associates in July 2022, claiming to have uncovered a significant money laundering racket involving Chinese nationals and Indian entities.
Vivo has denied the allegations, maintaining that it adheres to ethical principles and legal compliance.
The trial court had earlier rejected Rai’s bail plea in September, citing insufficient grounds for relief. However, Wednesday’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s balance between stringent anti-money laundering laws and individual rights under the Constitution.
