Maheshdan Prabhudan Langa Vs State of Gujarat & Anr (Gujarat High Court)
Conclusion: Applicant was having number of antecedents and therefore, it was difficult for the Court to come to the conclusion that the applicant would not commit any offence while on bail. There were all chances that if the applicant was ordered to be enlarged on bail, he might cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution, therefore, the statutory conditions for bail were not satisfied.
Also Read SC Judgment in this case: Maheshdan Prabhudan Langa Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Held: Assessee was a prominent journalist and a correspondent of The Hindu, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). ED invoked Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA based on two predicate FIRs lodged. The predicate FIRs alleged that Langa induced individuals including businessman Pranay Shah and land broker Janak Thakore by projecting political and media influence to extort significant amounts of money. The first FIR alleged that Langa induced one Pranay Shah to pay ₹23 lakhs under the pretense of helping acquire office space and leveraging his media influence. The payment was routed through a third party company, Vyomeen Media Pvt. Ltd., and another ₹5.68 lakhs was allegedly used for his wife’s birthday celebration at Jade Banquet Hall again without repayment. The second FIR, registered by Janakbhai Thakore, alleged that Langa posed as a land broker and extorted ₹40 lakhs by promising favorable media coverage and resolution of land disputes. Thakore claimed to have paid the amount in two tranches and was threatened with defamatory publications when he resisted further demands. According to ED, the total alleged amount involved in these predicate offences was Rs. 68.68 lakhs. The Directorate further submitted that additional unexplained transactions of Rs. 20 lakhs and Rs. 30 lakhs one relating to a seized cash amount and another linked to a failed land deal must also be included as proceeds of crime, taking the total to over Rs. 1.18 crore and thereby invoking the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA. The Court examined the series of financial transactions, including Rs. 23 lakhs routed through M/s Vyomeen Media Pvt. Ltd., the Rs. 5.68 lakhs banquet payment, Rs. 40 lakhs extorted in cash from Mr. Thakore, and the Rs. 20 lakhs seized from the applicant’s residence. The statements from witnesses revealed stark contradictions. While the applicant-journalist claimed the Rs. 20 lakhs belonged to his sister-in-law for safekeeping, his wife said it was gifted to her, and the sister-in-law flatly denied any such transaction. Similarly, contradictory versions emerged regarding the consideration amount and mode of payment for an office property purchased in his wife’s name. ED contended that the cash component for the deal came from extorted funds. It was held that these contradictions and lack of credible explanations raised serious doubts about the source of funds. “There are all chances that if the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail, he may cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution” said the court while providing order in the bail application submitted by Langa. The Court viewed this act as indicative of the applicant’s continued control and potential to influence the investigation process. ED also presented statements indicating Langa had coordinated suspicious financial activities involving his father, wife, and associates, with funds being routed through multiple bank accounts, including to a firm where his wife was a partner. The arguement that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA should not apply, claiming the total proceeds of crime were below the Rs. 1 crore threshold. However, the Court found merit in the prosecution’s submission that the threshold had been crossed when the additional Rs. 20 and Rs. 30 lakh transactions were included. ED also asserted that ongoing investigation was likely to uncover further financial irregularities and predicate offences linked to these funds. It was also submitted that despite multiple summons, the applicant’s father and other family members failed to cooperate with the investigation. The bench noted that Section 24 shifts the burden of proof on the accused, and in this case, the applicant failed to rebut the statutory presumption. Considering the contradictions in statements, unexplained wealth, use of media influence for alleged extortion, and potential to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses, the statutory conditions for bail were not satisfied.
