Mahesh Mittal Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Rajasthan High Court)
Rajasthan High Court recently granted bail to Mahesh Mittal, an accused in a money laundering case related to the Jal Jeevan Mission, despite acknowledging the gravity of the allegations and the mandatory conditions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The decision heavily relied on the principle of prolonged incarceration as a violation of the right to a speedy trial, as articulated by the Supreme Court of India in recent judgments.
Mahesh Mittal was facing charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, connected to ECIR No. JPZO/29/2023, alleging that his firm secured a government contract through deceitful means, including a forged eligibility certificate purportedly from IRCON. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) alleged that Mittal actively persuaded officials to forge crucial documents and bribed Manoj Pathak with ₹16.5 lakh for creating a fraudulent email ID and validating the forged certificate. Further scrutiny of bank transactions reportedly revealed a transfer of ₹1 crore to an intermediary, Sanjay Badaya, highlighting a broader conspiracy to secure the contract. The ED asserted that Mittal’s actions led to proceeds of crime amounting to ₹367.56 crore.
Senior Counsel Mr. V.R. Bajava, representing Mittal, argued that there was no substantial case against the petitioner under PMLA, emphasizing that even if the tender was secured without full eligibility, the petitioner had invested significant resources and executed various works under the contract. Crucially, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had not yet arrested or charge-sheeted Mittal in the predicate offense, though charge sheets had been filed against co-accused. Bajava highlighted the similar circumstances of co-accused Padam Chand Jain, who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court due to prolonged detention and the unlikelihood of a timely trial. He stressed that Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty, should be considered alongside Section 45 of the PMLA. The arguments were fortified by Supreme Court judgments in Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 595) and Kalvakuntla Kavitha vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 632), which underscore the importance of speedy trial and the constitutional right to liberty.
