IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS,

MADURAI BENCH
(Criminal Side)

Crl. O.P (MD) No. 22781 of 2023

In
F. No. ECIR/MDSZO/13/2021 dated 24.05.2021
(ON THE FILE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
MADURAI SUB ZONAL OFFICE)

Sri. Villayutham,
Aged 23 years,
S/o- Shri. Veluthevar
Door No. 7/12, Muthuramalinga,
Thevar Nagar, Rameshwaram,
Ramanathapuram District,
Tamil Nadu – 623 526 ...Petitioner/Accused

Vs

The State through the Assistant Director

Directorate of Enforcement,
Madurai Sub Zonal Office,
Government of India,
No. 1A, P&T Nagar Main Road,
Madurai- 625017
(ECIR/MDSZO/13/2021) ----Respondent/ Complainant
 COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

I, Brijesh Beniwal, aged 34 years, currently working as Assistant

Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Department of Revenue, Ministry
of Finance, Govt. of India, No. 1A, P & T Nagar Main Road, Madurai-
625017 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:
2. It is submitted that I am the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement,
Madurai and I am well conversant with the facts of the above case culled
out from the records maintained at the office. As such I am authorized
and Competent to swear this affidavit on behalf of the Directorate.
3. I humbly submit that I have read the above said Bail Petition in Crl. O.P.
(MD) No.22781/2023 filed by the Petitioner/Accused herein before this
Hon’ble High Court of Madras Judicature, Madurai Bench and
understood its contents and that I deny all the averments contained
therein except those that are specifically admitted herein and Petitioner/
Accused herein is put to strict proof of the same.
4. I humbly submit that the brief facts leading to registration of ECIR which
subsequently culminated into filing of Prosecution Complaint as
contemplated under Sec 44(1)(b) and 45 of PMLA,2002 are as follows:
4.1 It is submitted that Jetty Police Station, Rameswaram had registered
an FIR in Cr.No. 95/2021 dated 11.04.2021 against Shri. Villayutham
S/o. Shri. Velu Thevar, Shri. Vilva Bhuvaneswaran S/o. Shri.
Villayutham, Shri. Thangasamy S/o Shri. Thetchcinamoorthi and
unknown others under Sections 9, 39(1), 50 & 51(1) of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972 for processing and smuggling 2800 Kgs of
lifeless-processed and unprocessed sea cucumbers worth Rs. 2 Crores.

2
4.2 It is submitted that out of the offences invoked in the said FIR No.
95/2021 11.04.2021, Sections 9, 39 and 51 of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972 are covered under Paragraph 6 of PART A of
the Schedule to the PMLA, 2002 under Sections 2(1) (x) & (y) of the
said Act and prima-facie, as the persons accused in the said FIR
appeared to have committed an offence of money-laundering under
Section 3 of PMLA, 2002, an Enforcement Case Information Report
No. ECIR/MDSZO/13/2021 was recorded on 24.05.2021 to
investigate the same under the provisions of the PMLA, 2002.
4.3 It is further submitted that during the course of the investigation, it
was learnt that the following FIRs and WLORs were registered
against Shri Villayutham and others for smuggling of Sea cucumbers,
a marine species protected under Schedule I of Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972:
S.No. Cr.No. Station

1. WLOR No. 37/2010, U/s 9, 39 (1), 50, Mandapam Forest

51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 Station

2. WLOR No. 26/2011, U/s 9, 39 (1), 50, Mandapam Forest

51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 Station

3. WLOR No. 33/2011, U/s 9, 39 (1), 50, Mandapam Forest

51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 Station

4. WLOR No. 06/2009, U/s 9, 39 (1), 50, Forest

51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 Department,
Ramnad Range

5. WLOR No. 07/2009, U/s 9, 39 (1), 50, Forest

51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 Department,

3
 Ramnad Range

6. FIR No. 96/2013, U/s 5(a) of Explosive Thirupalakudi PS

Substances Act, 1908 and 9, 39 (1), 50,
51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972

7. FIR No. 01/2008, U/s 13(1)(2) and 10(a) Q Branch,

(4) of Unlawful Activities Prevention Ramanthapuram
Act. district.

8. FIR No. 48/2021, U/s 9, 39 (1), 50, 51(1) Mandapam PS

of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972

9. FIR No. 95/2021, U/s 9, 39 (1), 50, 51(1) Rameswaram Jetty

of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 PS

10. WLOR 18/2011, U/s 9, 39 (1), 50, 51(1) Mandapam Forest

of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 Station

11. WLOR No. 13/2017, U/s 9, 39(1) &(3), Mandapam Forest

40(2), 50 and 51(1) of Wild Life Station
Protection Act, 1972

12. WLOR No. 12/2021, U/s 9, 39(1), 50 Mandapam Forest

and 51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act, Station
1972

13. WLOR No. 14/2021, U/s 9, 39(1) & (3), Mandapam Forest
40(2), 50, 51(1) and 57 of Wild Life Station
Protection Act, 1972

14. WLOR No. 06/2022, U/s 9, 39(1) & (3), Mandapam Forest

4
 40(2), 50, 51(1) and 57 of Wild Life Station
Protection Act, 1972

15. WLOR No. 17/2022 U/s 9, 39(1) & (3), Mandapam Forest
40(2), 50, 51(1) and 57 of Wild Life Station
Protection Act, 1972

4.4 It is submitted that from the year 2008 till 2022, 15 WLORs and FIRs
were registered against Shri Villayutham by Forest and Police
departments for offences committed under the Wildlife Protection
Act, 1972, Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and The Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Processed Sea cucumbers weighing
around 6010 Kilograms and unprocessed Sea cucumbers weighing
around 2730 kilograms were seized by the Police Department and
Forest Department of Ramanathapuram vide the above listed
FIRs/WLORs registered against Shri Villayutham and others. He was
arrested on multiple occasions in connection with the smuggling of
sea cucumbers. A case was also registered against Shri Villayutham
by Q Branch, Ramanathapuram for smuggling generators to LTTE, a
banned outfit, to enable them to make explosives. Hence, it can be
clearly seen that Shri Villayutham is a habitual offender, who is
regularly involved in the poaching and smuggling of sea cucumbers in
and around Rameswaram town of Ramanathapuram District, which
borders with Gulf of Mannar, a rich habitat of Sea cucumbers.
4.5 It is further submitted that based on the reasons to believe that Shri
Villayutham had committed the offence of money laundering and that
he was in the possession of proceeds of crime involved in money
laundering and the records related to money laundering, search

5
 operations under Section 17 of PMLA, 2002 were carried out at the
residential and business premises of Shri. Villayutham and the
residential premises of Shri. Kalidoss, Manager of Hotel Raamajayam
at Rameswaram and also at the premises of Hotel Raamajayam,
Rameswaram on 09.08.2021. Certain incriminating documentary and
digital evidences were seized during the search proceedings.
4.6 It is humbly submitted that, during the course of the investigation, it
was revealed that Shri Villayutham, who had started his profession as
a fisherman coolie in the year 1982, had started doing business of
buying and selling of fish in small scale. He had subsequently floated
business entities viz. M/s VVN Sea Foods, M/s VV Agency, M/s
Hotel Raamajayam, M/s VV Sea Shell Mart, M/s VV1 Dry Fish
Process and M/s Hotel Raamajayam Restaurant either in his name or
in the names of his family members. He had, over the years, been
using them as a front for projecting the proceeds obtained from the
illegal smuggling activities as legal business income. Shri
Villayutham had deposited the proceeds of smuggling activities in the
form of cash, amounting to multiple crores, in the bank accounts
maintained in the names of himself, his wife, his children and various
business entities operated by them. His children had also stated in
their voluntary statements that the source of funds for the transactions
in their bank accounts was their father Shri Villayutham, since they
were not gainfully employed during that period. This money was then
utilized to repay loans availed in the names of his business entities to
the tune of many crores, periodically and through One Time
Settlements offered by the bank and also for the purchase of
immovable properties, construction and maintenance of Hotel
Raamajayam and other business and family expenses. The income

6
 declared in the Income Tax returns filed for the business activities of
Hotel, fish/seafood along with various other business entities run in
the names of Villayutham and his family members is much lower than
the total income determined / found during investigation which has
been used to purchase properties, paying back the loans and various
other expenses.
4.7 It is also submitted that analysis of the Income Tax Returns filed by
M/s Hotel Raamajayam revealed that Hotel was mostly running in loss
and did not have the financial capacity to repay the loans availed to
the extent of multiple crores. Analysis of the IT Returns filed by Shri
Villayutham and Smt. Mangaleswari had revealed that income from
M/s VV Agency was paltry. No documentary evidence was submitted
corroborating the functioning of M/s Hotel Raamajayam Restaurant
and M/s VV1 Dry Fish Process. M/s VV Agency was closed since it
was incurring losses. M/s VV Sea Shell Mart was also closed since
2020.
4.8 It is further submitted that Transactions worth multiple crores,
predominantly in cash, were noticed in the bank accounts of his sons
during the period 2017 till 2022, when they were not gainfully
employed. IT Returns were filed by Shri Villayutham in the names of
his sons when they were still studying. This was done solely to project
the income earned through smuggling of sea cucumbers as untainted.
IT Returns were also filed in the name of Villayutham HUF, stating
the source of income as fishing business. The same source i.e., fishing
business was cited in the IT Returns of Shri Villayutham, his family
members and Villayutham HUF. It is clearly evident that IT Returns
were filed in the names of the family members and the HUF to give

7
 legal colouring to the money earned through his illegal activities,
which is nothing but money laundering.
4.9 It is humbly submitted that from the statements given by Forest Range
Officer, Mandapam and Inspector of Police, Rameswaram, it is learnt
that Shri Villayutham had used local fishermen and local unemployed
youth for illegally poaching sea cucumbers, which were then
processed in his coconut grove at Rameswaram; that the processed sea
cucumbers were transported illegally to Sri Lanka, since it was the
nearest legal trading hub for sea cucumbers; that the sea cucumbers
would be then transported from Sri Lanka to China, Indonesia, and
other South East countries.
4.10 It is humbly submitted that Shri Villayutham was given multiple
opportunities during his examination under section 50 of the PMLA,
2002 and during the ED custody to explain the source of funds for the
purchase of properties, for the cash deposits amounting to multiple
crores in the bank accounts maintained in his name, in the names of
his family members and his business entities, source of funds for the
repayment of loans and other expenses and why the properties
purchased in his name and in the name of his wife Smt Mangaleswari
are disproportionate to his known sources of income. He did not
provide any satisfactory explanation backed by documentary evidence
for the above transactions and their source. This shows that the said
money was obtained from illegal smuggling activities and then placed
into legal system, layered to distance it from its criminal origins and
subsequently projected as untainted. He has not cooperated with the
investigation in unraveling the entire gamut of transactions and has
been found to be clearly evasive and misleading to derail the
investigation.

8
4.11 It is humbly submitted that the materials gathered during the course of
the investigation including the bank transactions, IT Returns,
voluntary statements given by Shri Villayutham, his family members
and others clearly point out the commission of offence of money
laundering. There was neither any justification nor evidence to show
that the source of funds to repay loans amounting to multiple crores,
to purchase multiple immovable properties, to pay exorbitant medical
college fees is his genuine business income. Furthermore, the accused
was likely to destroy incriminating evidence and the materials that
further point out the complicity of the accused.
Therefore, on the reasons to believe that Shri. Villayutham S/o
Velu Thevar is guilty of the offence of Money Laundering u/s. 3 of the
PMLA, 2002, punishable u/s. 4 of the PMLA, 2002, he was arrested
on 13.03.2023 u/s 19(1) of the PMLA, 2002. It is humbly submitted
that, in the event of not arresting Shri. Villayutham S/o Velu Thevar,
there was every chance that he may tamper with and destroy the
evidences and would also induce the person/s who are acquainted with
relevant facts about the crime from divulging the same, which are
required for investigation in the present case.

4.12 Shri Villayutham was produced before the Hon’ble IInd Additional
District Judge, Madurai on 14.03.2023. The Hon’ble Court was
pleased to remand the accused to Judicial Custody initially till
15.03.2023. The Hon’ble Court was then pleased to grant ED, custody
of the accused Shri Villayutham for 8 days from 15.03.2023 till
23.03.2023 vide Order dated 15.03.2023 in Crl. M. P. No.1145 of
2023. The Hon’ble Court was initially pleased to remand the arrestee
back to the Judicial Custody till 28.03.2023 and subsequently till

9
 09.05.2023 after due consideration of remand extension petitions filed
in the case.
4.13 It is humbly submitted that in the meanwhile, Prosecution Complaint
dated 18.04.2023 has been filed in the case before the Trial Court and
the Court took cognizance of the complaint vide CC No. 03/2023 and
the trial has also started in the Court of IInd Additional District Judge
for CBI Cases.
4.14 It is humbly submitted that the present petitioner had also filed the two
successive regular bail petitions u/S. 439 CrPC numbered as Crl.
M.P. No(s). 1273/2023 and 1793/2023 before the same court as
mentioned above and both of them were accordingly dismissed on
11.04.2023 as well as on 17.05.2023 by the said Court.
4.15 It is humbly submitted that the present petitioner again filed a regular
bail petition before this Court and vide Crl. O.P(MD) No.
10348/2023, the same was listed before the bench Hon’ble Mr. Justice
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan. The said bench dismissed the bail application of
the petitioner by keeping in mind the antecedents of the petitioner as
well as failing to satisfy the twin conditions stipulated under S. 45 of
the Act. Moreover, the Single Bench of the Hon’ble Court in Para
No. 12 of the order also opined that the period of incarceration
underwent by petitioner becomes irrelevant when the petitioner is
involved in these types of serious offences.
4.16 It is also humbly submitted that the OC No. 1976/2023 filed by the
Complainant before the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority was
confirmed by the said Authority after listening to the final arguments
of both the sides in the last leg of the September, 2023.

10
 PARA WISE REPLY TO THE BAIL PETITION:

5. It is humbly submitted that the averments made in paragraph No(s). 1, 2

and 3 of this filed bail Petition are facts and matter of record. Moreover,
with respect to the averments made by the petitioner in Para No. 1, that
he is in jail for a period of more than 200, the following is reproduced
herein as to what the co-ordinate bench of this Hon’ble Court had earlier
stated with respect to the disposing off the earlier bail petition filed by
the same petitioner in Shri Villayutham v. The State, through,
represented by the Directorate of Enforcement, Crl OP (MD). No.
10348 of 2023:
“12. ……………The period of incarceration cannot be
ground to release him on bail when he committed such a
serious and gravity offence and also his antecedents
with regard to his involvement in similar types of
offences. That apart, there is a bar under Section 45 of
the PML Act, 2002. Accordingly, an accused can be
granted bail only if the Court is of the view that the
accused has not committed any offence under the said
Act. (Emphasis laid down upon the underlined part)
6. It is humbly submitted that in reference to the averments made in Para No.
4 of this filed Bail Petition, they are vehemently denied and the
Petitioner is concocting the same by endeavoring to make the facts out of
fiction. It is respectfully submitted that the volume of cases registered
against the Petitioner by the other LEAs over a period of almost 15 years
is in itself enough to establish the fact that he was prone to smuggling
and dealing with the processed and unprocessed sea cucumbers which is
completely prohibited under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the

11
 same tantamount to make it fall under Paragraph No. 6 of “The
Schedule” as given under the PMLA, 2002.
7. It is humbly submitted that in reference to the averments made in Para No.
5 of this filed Bail Petition are denied. The averments made by the
petitioner in Paragraph no. 5 of the petition is partly admitted only for
the fact that he did duly appear before the Enforcement Directorate but
denied for the facts that he neither co-operated with the investigation nor
submitted the relevant documents which were asked for during the entire
investigation and the same has been duly mentioned in the filed PC
before the Court of IInd Additional District Judge for CBI Cases.
Moreover, the said PAO was carried out only as per the provisions given
under the PMLA, 2002, i.e. by following the strict mandate of S. 5(1) of
the Act along with duly keeping in mind the Constitutional Courts
dictum issued from time-to-time by recording the proper ‘reasons to
believe’ in writing. Furthermore, the said attachment along with the
seizure of document were carried out only because these properties were
acquired by the Petitioner through utilizing PoC derived from ‘illegal
smuggling of sea cucumbers over the period of so many years’ and the
same also ‘completely fulfils the ingredients of S.5(1)(b)’ i.e.
frustrating of the proceedings under Chapter III of the PMLA, in light of
the point that when the petitioner along with his sons has duly stated
about selling some of these properties before the department when they
were summoned U/s. 50 of the Act.
It is also humbly submitted that during search conducted by the
respondent/complainant, certain incriminating evidences were seized
which showed Petitioner has an active role to play and his involvement
in the commission of the offence of money laundering. Based on such

12
incriminating materials the following facts had been revealed during
subsequent investigation:
a) The investigation under PMLA, 2002 has revealed that multiple
FIRs/WLORs were registered over a period of more than 15 years
against Shri Villayutham for indulging in illegal smuggling of
banned Sea cucumbers, a marine species protected under the
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
b) Shri Villayutham had utilized the business entities floated by him as
a conduit to place the ill-gotten money in the legal economic
system.
c) Shri Villayutham had deposited the proceeds of smuggling activities
in the form of cash, amounting to multiple crores, in the bank
accounts maintained in the names of himself, his wife, his children
and various business entities operated by them.
The petitioner has been knowingly involved in concealment and transfer
of proceeds of crime and is knowingly involved in process or activity
connected with proceeds of crime and projection of the same as
untainted. As per the filed Prosecution Complaint before the said Court,
it transpired that the petitioner who has committed the offence of money
laundering, as defined under section 3 of the PMLA, must be punished
under section 4 of the PMLA 2002, in light of attaining the objectives of
PMLA, 2002.

8. It is humbly submitted that in reference to the averments made in Para

No. 6 of this filed Bail Petition are vehemently denied. Furthermore, it is
also to be duly considered that it is premature for the Petitioner at this
very stage to claim his innocence as the trial is still pending/investigation
is still pending in the various cases registered by the LEAs against the

13
present Petitioner. Moreover, it is also submitted that on the point
concerning as to the filing up of or non-filing up of the chargesheet by
the LEAs, what the Hon’ble SC has recently stated in Directorate of
Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 433 is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“6.3 From the impugned judgment(s) and order(s)
passed by the High Court, it appears that what is
weighed with the High Court is that chargesheet has
been filed against respective respondent No. 1 –
accused and therefore, the investigation is
completed. However, the High Court has failed to
notice and appreciate that the investigation with
respect to the scheduled offences under the PML Act,
2002 by the Enforcement Directorate is still going
on. Merely because, for the predicated offences the
chargesheet might have been filed it cannot be a
ground to release the accused on bail in connection
with the scheduled offences under the PML Act,
2002. Investigation for the predicated offences and
the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for
the scheduled offences under the PML Act are
different and distinct. Therefore, the High Court has
taken into consideration the irrelevant
consideration. The investigation by the Enforcement
Directorate for the scheduled offences under the
PML Act, 2002 is till going on.”
(emphasis applied on the underlined part)

14
 Thus, it is not out of place to say that the Petitioner is not
precluded from leading evidence and producing documents
before the aforementioned Court during the trial and discharge
the burden cast upon him by the statute that he was not involved
in the offence concerning the smuggling and poaching of these
sea-cucumbers as well as into the offence of money laundering.
9. It is humbly submitted that in reference to the averments made in
Para No(s). 7 & 8 of this filed Bail Petition are vehemently denied.
Moreover, it is also submitted that, when the case of the present
petitioner is seen in light of S. 436 A of CrPC, then it becomes
imperative that he is not fulfilling the said stipulated conditions
prescribed under the said section for getting released on bail.
Thus, merely putting forth the averment before the Court by the
Petitioner that he had underwent so number of days in jail
amounts to pre-trial conviction does not hold good when the same
is seen through the perspective of either the Hon’ble
Constitutional Courts dictum issued from time-to-time or as per
the appropriate provisions governing the law related bail enshrined
under the CrPC, 1973.
10. It is humbly submitted that in reference to the averments made in Para
No(s). 9 & 10 of this filed Bail Petition are vehemently denied. It is also
submitted that considering the Petitioner having clear antecedents, he
can very well influence the person associated with the case and can also
very well use the money and muscle power to tamper with the evidence
and to win over the witnesses. In light of the same, it is humbly
submitted that most recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.
Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC
791, has reiterated the “triple test” that may be duly considered by

15
 this Hon’ble bench before acting on the said bail application and
the same are stated as under:
a) That the accused is not at “flight risk.”
b) That there are no chances of tampering with evidences.
c) That there is no likelihood that the accused shall influence the
witnesses.
In the instant case, the accused is falling under all the aforesaid
mentioned categories, so it is humbly prayed that the petitioner’s bail
application may be duly rejected by this Hon’ble Court.
11. It is humbly submitted that in reference to the averments made in Para
No. 11 of this filed Bail Petition that the same are a matter of record and
not much comments are warranted thereto.
12. It is humbly submitted that in reference to the averments made in Para
No(s). 12 & 13 of this filed Bail Petition are vehemently denied since no
medical reports have been attached therewith by the Petitioner along with
the filed bail petition. Moreover, with respect to the averments being raised
by the petitioner concerning the medical grounds, it becomes imperative to
quote the following below-mentioned para of State through Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi v. Jaspal Singh Gill
(1984) 3 SCC 555:
“11. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the High
Court should not have enlarged the respondent on bail in
the larger interests of the State. It is urged that the
respondent is a person who has undergone a cardiac
operation and needs constant medical attention. I am sure
that the prison authorities will arrange for proper treatment
of the respondent whenever the need for it arises.”
(Emphasis laid down upon the underlined part)

16
In State of UP v. Gayatri Prasad Prajapti, Criminal Appeal No.
686 of 2020, the Hon’ble SC stated the following:
“15……….There was no satisfaction recorded by the High
Court that treatment offered to respondent was not adequate
and he requires any further treatment by any particular
medical institute for which it is necessary to release the
respondent on interim bail on medical grounds.”

In NIA v. Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1, the crux of the
Hon’ble SC’s judgment was following:
Investigation revealing accusations as being prima facie true -
Prayer for bail on health grounds, on consideration of totality
of facts, held, rightly rejected - Accused was provided with
medical care as and when demanded from government
hospitals and from AIMS Special Court had directed Jail
Superintendent to provide proper medical care/treatment as
requested/called for [Essence of Paras 2 to 4 and 50 to 57]

Furthermore, in Sameer Mahandru v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023

SCC OnLine Del 3603: (2023) 2 HCC (Del) 722, the Delhi High Court
had observed the following:
“36. The Bombay High Court in Mahendra Manilal
Shah v. Rashmikant Mansukhlal Shah [Mahendra Manilal
Shah v. Rashmikant Mansukhlal Shah, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom
2095] held that the nature of the sickness needs to be seen as to
whether the accused can be treated in the government hospitals

17
and custody. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced
hereunder:
“47. … (1) Pawan v. Ram Prakash Pandey [Pawan v. Ram
Prakash Pandey, (2002) 9 SCC 166 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1110 :
AIR 2002 SC 2224] , in this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court granting
bail to the accused inter alia on the ground that the allegation of
ailment of the applicant is not specifically denied. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court was of the view that the ailment of the accused
was not of such a nature as to require him to be released on
bail. It was observed that the accused can always apply to the
jail authorities to see that he gets the required treatment. It was
observed that in the application, the applicant had not stated
that he still needs medical treatment or that he has not received
proper medical treatment from the jail authorities.
∗∗∗
50. As observed in the various judgments cited
above, mere admission of an accused to a hospital for
medical treatment does not entitle an accused to obtain bail
under the proviso to Section 437(1)CrPC. In fact as observed
earlier the said proviso cannot be resorted to in all cases of
sickness. The court must assess the nature of sickness and
whether the sickness can be treated whilst in the custody or in
government hospitals. The court should also be satisfied that a
case is made out by the respondent-accused by himself or
through the doctors attending to him that the treatment
required to be administered to the respondent-accused,
considering the nature of his ailment cannot be adequately or

18
 efficiently be administrated in the hospital in which he is at
present and that he needs a better equipped or a speciality
hospital….”
37. A cumulative consideration of the legislative intent of
the PMLA, and the precedents indicates that the proviso to
Section 45(1) is a relaxation to the sick or infirm persons
provided that the sickness or infirmity is so grave that it is
life-threatening and cannot be treated by jail hospitals.”
(Emphasis laid down upon the underlined part)

Moreover, the reliance is also place upon as to what the Karnataka High
Court had stated in K. Ramakrishna v. UOI, Criminal Petition No.
5974/2023, while rejecting the bail application of the petitioner:
“31. ……I have perused the medical records, no doubt
he is having heart ailment from 2016 and no doubt the
principles laid down in the judgments also clear that the
Court can take note of the health of the petitioner
whether he is an under Trial prisoner or convict and
same also to be taken care of. The jail authority can
take care of the said ailment of the petitioner by taking
him to Jayadeva hospital and if the petitioner desires,
he can be taken to private hospital at his choice and jail
authority is directed to take him to hospital for his
treatment as contended by the petitioner and no ground
is made out to release him on bail……………….”
(Emphasis laid down upon the underlined part)

19
13. It is humbly submitted that in reference to the averments made in
Para No. 14 of this filed Bail Petition, they are vehemently denied. It is
to be taken into consideration by this Hon’ble Court that the number of
cases registered against the petitioner by the various Law Enforcement
Agencies (under 3 different Penal Statues) warrants him to be a
‘habitual offender’ and not merely a simpliciter ‘first time offender’.
In relation to the ‘habitual offender’ vis-à-vis bail application, what the
Apex Court has observed is quoted hereinbelow for a bare perusal.
In Harjit Singh v. Inderpreet Singh @ Inder and Other (SC), Criminal
Appeal No. 883 of 2021, the Court stated that:
“4.8. ……looking to the seriousness of the offence and his
antecedents and he being the habitual offender, merely because
he was behind bars since last about 4-5 months cannot be a
ground to release him on bail in a serious offence of committing
the murder and destroying the evidence.”
Furthermore, the nature of offence committed by the accused stands on a
different pedestal in terms of the gravity if we look onto and it simply
can’t be equated with just like any other ordinary type of crime, by
considering the simple fact that the crime committed by the petitioner
pertains to the marine ecosystems (bearing a direct impact on the
humans and the other marine species as well).
It is also humbly submitted that, in view of the aforesaid the provision
contained in section 45 of the Act, should also be considered by this
Hon’ble Court, which states that an accused can be granted bail only if
the Hon’ble Court is of the view that the accused has not committed any
offence under the Act. To the contrary, in the instant case there are
sufficient materials as stated in the in the filed Prosecution Complaint to
establish the culpability on the part of the accused/ petitioner. As already

20
mentioned hereinabove, it is humbly submitted that this Hon’ble High
Court may consider the twin conditions of section 45 of the PMLA, 2002
while considering this petition along with the case Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary vs Union of India, 2022 Live Law (SC) 633, which upheld
the constitutional validity of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, by looking
into the below-mentioned quoted para:

“187 (xiii) (c) The provision in the form of Section 45 of the 2002
Act, as applicable post amendment of 2018, is reasonable and has
direct nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by
the 2002 Act and does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or
unreasonableness.

(d) As regards the prayer for grant of bail, irrespective of the nature
of proceedings, including those under Section 438 of the 1973 Code
or even upon invoking the jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts, the
underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 may apply.

The Section 45 of PMLA lays down certain conditions for bail and the
said section reads as follows:
Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—
(1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an
offence 96[under this Act] shall be released on bail or on his own
bond unless—]

the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the

application for such release; and

21
where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail:

Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a

woman or is sick or infirm [or is accused either on his own or along
with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one
crore rupees], may be released on bail, if the Special Court so
directs:
Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of
any offence punishable under section 4 except upon a complaint in
writing made by—
(the Director; or
(i any officer of the Central Government or a State Government
authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a
general or special order made in this behalf by that Government
[(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no
police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless
specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or
special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.]
(2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in 99[***] sub-section
(1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in
force on granting of bail.

22
 a[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that the
expression "Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean
and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this
Act shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), and accordingly the officers
authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused
without warrant, subject to the fulfilment of conditions under section
19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this
section.]Therefore in regard to the offence of money laundering, an
accused can be enlarged on bail by the court of law only on
satisfaction of the condition stated supra.”
14. It is most humbly submitted that in continuation to the aforementioned
paras, that during investigation under PMLA, it has been found that the
petitioner is knowingly involved in concealment and transfer of proceeds
of crime so as to project the same as untainted. Further, if granted bail
the accused may prevent from causing the evidence of the offence to
disappear and to further prevent from inducing or threatening any person
who is acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the respondent department. The Petitioner is
influential person and has the money and muscle power to tamper with
evidence and to win over the witnesses. The Petitioner may use their
money and muscle power to tamper with the investigation and
evidences.
Furthermore, it is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble High Court may
consider the petitioner’s past conduct before deciding the present
petition. With respect to the past conduct of the petitioner(s), The
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madras Bench through its

23
 Division Bench had observed the following in N. Umashankar @ N.M.
Umashankar and others. v. The Assistant Director, Enforcement
Directorate, Crl.O.P. Nos.3381, 3383 and 3385 of 2021:
“19. In view of the past conduct of the petitioners, this court does
not believe that the petitioner are not guilty of the alleged offences
and in such circumstances, this court cannot give a finding that the
petitioners are not likely to commit offence while on bail. It is also
alleged that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every
likelihood that the petitioners may flee the jurisdiction of this Court
to avoid the process of law. In these circumstances, we are not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.”
In respect of the above-mentioned submissions, it is also humbly
submitted that the petitioner should be not entitled to get any relief from
this Hon’ble Court and as such, the present bail petition ought to be
rejected by the Hon’ble Court.
15. It is further humbly submitted that the previous dismissed bail
applications of the petitioner by the Special Court as well as the co-
ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court mentioned hereinabove,
should be taken on record by this Hon’ble Court along with the twin
conditions given under S. 45 PMLA, cited case laws, chances of
destroying the evidence, hampering the trial, etc. amongst the several
other grounds which the petitioner can misuse.
16. It is humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Court should consider the points
raised by the respondent Department concerning the ‘petitioner’s bad
past conduct’, ‘being a habitual offender’, ‘tampering of the evidence’,
‘influencing the witnesses’, etc. before deciding and disposing off this
present bail petition.

24
17. Hence it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the
present bail petition inlimine with cost(s) and thereby render Justice.
PRAYER

Based on the aforesaid given reasons, it is most humbly prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to dismiss the instant bail
application in Crl.O.P(MD) No. 17925/ 2023 and to pass such further
order(s) as deemed to be fit on the facts and circumstances of the case
and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirm and sincerely

On this the 12th day of October 2023.

RESPONDENT
Through:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

JUDICATURE AT MADRAS,
MADURAI BENCH
(Criminal Side)
Crl. O.P (MD) No. 17925 of 2023

25
 In
F. No. ECIR/MDSZO/13/2021
dated 24.05.2021
(ON THE FILE OF THE
DIRECTORATE OF
ENFORCEMENT, MADURAI SUB
ZONAL OFFICE)

Humble Counter Affidavit to the

Bail petition filed u/s 439 of
Cr. P.C.

PETITONER/ACCUSED

Shri. Villayutham

ADVOCATE
K.R. Laxman, 2121/2001

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
State through the Assistant Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Madurai Sub Zonal Office, Madurai.

26