Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed the bail plea moved by Abdul Razak Peediyakkal, a member of the proscribed organization Popular front of India (PFI), in the case registered under the provision of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan held that the bail application of Peediyakkal did not qualify the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA. "...at this stage, it cannot be observed that the present applicant has not committed the offence for which the complaint has been filed against him," the judge opined.

The single judge bench further noted that in the present case, the proceed of crime was in crores and Peediyakkal is based in Abu Dhabi.

Furthermore, regarding the claim of parity with co-accused Sidhique Kappan, the judge emphasized that the role assigned to Sidhique Kappan is in respect of hatching a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons and except the allegation that Rs.5,000 were transferred in the bank account of co-accused Atikur Rahman, there was no other transaction either in the bank account of Kappan or other co-accused. 

"...whereas the role of the present applicant is altogether different from that of co-accused Sidhique Kappan as the present applicant is based in Abu Dhabi and the proceed of crime is in crores, therefore, the present applicant cannot claim parity with co-accused Sidhique Kappan, Justice Chauhan accordingly held. 

Peediyakkal had moved the present bail application before the high court seeking bail in the case filed against him by the ED under Sections 3, 4 & 70 of the PMLA. 

His counsel argued that he had been falsely implicated in the matter. Contending that no case was made out against Peediyakkal under Section 3 of PMLA, his counsel asserted that the commission of the scheduled/predicate offence by way of which ‘any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly is a mandatory requirement for a 'property’ to become 'proceeds of crime’.

He further argued that Peediyakkal was not an accused in any of the three predicate offences relating to the issue in question. However, he was arrested on March 10, 2020, by the ED, he submitted. 

Moreover, he stated that the ED had filed complaints under Sections 3, 4 & 70 of the PMLA against five accused persons, namely, K.A. Rauf Sherif, Atikur Rehman, Masud Ahmed, Sidique Kappan and Mohd. Alam. However, later on, four more persons including Peediyakkal were made accused, he told. 

Therefore, stressing that even the alleged main conspirator in the matter K.A. Rauf Sherif had been enlarged on bail, Peediyakkal's counsel sought his release on bail. 

On the other, opposing the bail plea, the counsel for the ED submitted that during the PMLA investigation, the fact emerged that the funds amounting to Rs.1.36 Crore, raised/collected abroad by the office bearers/ members/ activists of PFI, CFI and their related organizations, were routed to the Bank Accounts of K.A. Rauf Sherif, the National General Secretary of CFI.

Further, the investigation against PFI has so far revealed that more than Rs.100 Crore have been deposited in the accounts of PFI and its related entities over the years, he told the court.

He further submitted that it has come to the notice of the Investigating Agency that foreign funds had been remitted to India through hawala/ underground channels and through remittance sent to the accounts of members/ activists/office bearers of PFI/CFI and other related organizations.

Furthermore, the ED counsel stated that though initially, the involvement of only five accused persons had been noticed, later after further investigation Peediyakkal's role came to light that he had transferred a substantial amount to Rehab India Foundation associated with PFI activities. 

Considering the submissions made and the material available on record, the court rejected Peediyakkal's plea while directing the trial court to conclude the trial with expedition, preferably within a period of six months.

Case Title: Abdul Razak Peediyakkal v. Union Of India Enforcement Directorate Thru.Assitant Director

Statute: Sections 3, 4 & 70 of the PMLA