MANISH SISODIA versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 30-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 480 : 2023 INSC 956
480
CASE DETAILS
MANISH SISODIA
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 3352 of 2023)
OCTOBER 30, 2023
[SANJIV KHANNA AND S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The two appeals are fi led by the appellant-
former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi seeking bail in the prosecutions 
arising from a case registered by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1988 and the Penal Code, 1860; and enforcement case fi led by the 
Directorate of Enforcement, under the Prevention of Money Laundering 
Act, 2002.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 – Requirement 
for grant of bail under:
Held: Referring to s.45 of the PML Act, in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary 
it was held that provision does not require that to grant bail, the court must 
arrive at a positive fi nding that the applicant has not committed an off ence 
under the PML Act – Section 45 must be construed reasonably as the intent 
of the legislature cannot be read as requiring the court to examine the issue 
threadbare and in detail to pronounce whether an accused is guilty or is 
entitled to acquittal – Further, an order on an application for bail is passed 
much before the end of trial and sometimes even before commencement of 
trial – Lastly, it is trite, that for the purpose of considering an application 
for bail, although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned, and, 
therefore, the evidence need not be weighed meticulously, a tentative fi nding 
should be recorded on the basis of broad probabilities – The order granting 
bail must demonstrate application of mind at least in serious cases where 
the applicant has been granted or denied bail – The fi ndings recorded by the 
Court for grant or refusing bail being tentative, will not have any bearing 
on the merits of the case, and the trial court would proceed and decide the 
481
case on the basis of evidence produced during trial without in any manner 
being prejudiced thereby. [Para 8]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.3 – Contours of: 
Held: On dissection of the main part of s.3, it is held that it postulates 
three ‘p’s, namely, the person, the process or activity, and the product – The 
process or activity consists of six parts- concealment, possession, acquisition, 
use, projecting or claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property – The 
product, that is, the proceeds of the crime, has been defi ned in Section 2(u) 
of the PML Act, as a property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by 
a person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled off ence or 
the value of such property – As far as ‘person’ is concerned, it means those 
who directly or indirectly attempt to indulge; those who knowingly assist, or 
those who are knowingly a party, or those who are actually involved – On 
the above interpretation, this court held in Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari and 
Another that the off ence u/s. 3 of the PML Act includes both the persons 
who commit the predicate or schedule off ence and third party launderers. 
[Para 16]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 – Bail sought by the appellant:
Held: There is one clear ground or charge in the complaint fi led under 
the PML Act, which is free from perceptible legal challenge and the facts 
as alleged are tentatively supported by material and evidence – The facts as 
alleged, which it is stated establish an off ence u/s. 3 of the PML Act and the 
PoC Act., These are: (1) In a period of about ten months, during which the 
new excise policy was in operation, the wholesale distributors had earned 
Rs. 581,00,00,000 (rupees fi ve hundred eighty one crores only) as the fi xed 
fee; (2) The one time licence fee collected from 14 wholesale distributors 
was about Rs.70,00,00,000 (rupees seventy crores only); (3) Under the old 
policy 5% commission was payable to the wholesale distributors/licensees; 
(4) Under the old policy 5% commission was payable to the wholesale 
distributors/licensees; (5) The diff erence between the 12%; minus 5% 
of the wholesale profi t margin plus Rs.70,00,00,000/-; it was submitted, 
would constitute proceeds of crime, an off ence punishable under the PML 
Act – The proceeds of crime were acquired, used and were in possession 
of the wholesale distributors who have unlawfully benefi tted from illegal 
MANISH SISODIA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 
INVESTIGATION
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
gain at the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.