BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

(Criminal Original Jurisdiction)

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
S/o Velu Thevar
Door No. 7/12, Muthuramalinga,
Thevar Nagar, Rameshwaram,
Ramanathapuram District,
Tamil Nadu – 623 526. …Petitioner/1st
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, Son of Shri Babu Singh Beniwal, Hindu, 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:
1. It is submitted that I am working as 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.
2. Save and except those that are hereinafter expressly admitted, all
other averments that are in the Bail Application are all denied as
false and frivolous and it for the Petitioner to prove the same.
3. I humbly submit that as far as the present Bail Petition is concerned,
it has been filed on two footings, wherein, the first is upon the
grounds on Merits and the second is on Medical Grounds. As far as
Medical Grounds are concerned,
a. There are no records either placed/filed/served by the

Petitioner to disclose any of his medical ailments, endangering

his life, to seek the relief of Bail.

b. Moreover, the 2nd Bail Petition was more on Medical Grounds,

wherein, the said 2nd bail petition having got dismissed and on

account of the fact that there is no change in his Medical

Condition as it was while dismissal of the 2nd bail petition,

question of reconsidering any of such grounds as raised by the

petitioner in the present 3rd Bail Petition is impermissible, both

under Law and on facts.

c. That it is decided principles of Law to the effect that the

medical ground should not be a mere Medical illness, wherein,

such medical illness should be in the level of causing endanger

to the life of such person, wherein, in the light of the fact that

there is no such endanger to the petitioner, wherein, he is

 much hale and health with a treatment available in the

Hospital attached with the Prison, question of raising such

Medical ground on same set of facts, for the 2nd time is legally

impermissible.

d. That moreover, the petitioner has not made out any ground to

the effect that the present treatment is insufficient or non-

available to sustain the petitioner’s life and limb, question of

raising the medical grounds for the 3rd time, without any

change in the circumstances does not arise and as such,

question of considering the present Bail Petition does not arise.

4. I humbly submit that as far as the grounds on merits is concerned, it

is needless to mention here that none of the grounds raised by the
petitioner is either new or not available in the earlier bail petition and
as such, question of reiterating the earlier grounds raised in the 1st
and 2nd bail petition is legally impermissible, as decided by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein, the relevant portion is extracted
hereunder:

But without the change in the circumstances, the

second application would be deemed to be seeking
review of the earlier judgment, which is not
permissible under Criminal Law as has been held by
this Court in Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh
Bajwa & Anr. [2001 (1) SCC 169] and various other
judgements.

5. 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:
3.1 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.

3.2 It is submitted that out of the offences invoked in the said FIR No.
95/2021 dated 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
Section3 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.

3.3 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,
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 Q Branch,

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

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

51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972

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

51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 Jetty PS

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

51(1) 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
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

3.4 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.
3.5 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 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.

3.6 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
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.

3.7 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.

3.8 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 legal colouring to the money earned
 through his illegal activities, which is nothing but money
laundering.

3.9 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.

3.10 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 unravelling the entire gamut of transactions
and has been found to be clearly evasive and misleading to derail
the investigation.
3.11 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.

3.12 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.

a. It is further submitted that, 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 09.05.2023 after due
consideration of remand extension petitions filed in the case.
b. 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, Madurai.

c. 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 Court of
IInd Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai and both of
them were accordingly dismissed on 11.04.2023 as well as on
17.05.2023 by the said Court.

d. It is humbly submitted that the present petitioner again filed a

regular bail petition before this Hon’ble Court 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 on 22.06.2023 in view of the
antecedents of the petitioner as well as failing to satisfy the twin
conditions stipulated under S. 45 of the PMLA, 2002. 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.

e. 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 September, 2023.

f. It is humbly submitted that then again, the Petitioner approached

this Hon’ble Court for the grant of Regular Bail vide CRL OP(MD).
 No.17925 of 2023 and the same was rejected by the bench of
Hon`ble Mr. Justice V. Sivagnanam on 20.10.2023, wherein, this
Hon’ble Court has dismissed the Bail Petition both on merits and
on medical grounds and as such, question of 3rd Bail Petition on
same grounds is impermissible under Law.

PARA WISE REPLY TO THE BAIL PETITION:

6. 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 275 days, 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)

7. 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 endeavouring to make the
facts out of fiction. It is respectfully submitted that the volume of
cases registered against the Petitioner by the other Law Enforcement
Agencies 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 same
tantamount to make it fall under Paragraph No. 6 of “The Schedule”
as given under the PMLA, 2002. Moreover that, it is very clear from
his criminal antecedents that he has been involved in the cases
pertaining to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and has also been
connected to the banned outfit LTTE.

8. 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.

9. It is furthermore submitted that, 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.
10. 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 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.
11. 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.
12. 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 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
Supreme Court has recently stated in Directorate of Enforcement
v. Aditya Tripathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 433is reproduced herein
below:
“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)
13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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 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.

16. 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.

17. 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. It is not out of place to
mention that the Bail Petition is devoid any merit and filed merely on
the fictitious medical grounds. 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)

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 AIIMS 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 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 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)

18. 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. Furthermore, it is submitted that the medical grounds mentioned in

Paragraph No. 12 of the Bail Petition had already been mentioned in
the Crl. O.P. (M.D.) 17925 of 2023 filed by the Petitioner on earlier
occasion for the grant of regular bail and the same was considered by
this Hon’ble Court on previous occasion. Afterwards, this Hon’ble
Court after duly considering all the medical grounds mentioned in the
petition as well as the report of the Dean, Government Rajaji
Hospital, Madurai had rejected the bail petition and held that the
Petitioner’s condition as “not-serious.” In the present bail petition
neither new medical grounds have been mentioned nor have any
latest medical reports been produced by the Petitioner in support of
his claim. He has again relied upon the same medical reports which
have already been nullified by this Hon’ble Court in the earlier bail
petition preferred by the Petitioner. Thus, the present bail petition is
also liable to be dismissed.
20. 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 herein below 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.”
21. 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 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

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.

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.”
22. 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 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.
23. It is further submitted that the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) regulates trade
in specimens of over 38,000 species. It contains strict conditions
under which international trade can be authorized through the
issuance of export permits or licences. The Convention was adopted
in 1973 and entered into force on 1 July 1975. At the time of writing,
CITES has 184 parties and regulates all major markets of the world.
India is a party to CITES and since, the ECIR concerned is focused on
the illegal trade of sea cucumbers, it becomes not only a question of
law enforcement and implementation of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
but also an obligation of India towards the international commitment
upon the issues of protection of endangered species.

24. 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.

25. 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.

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. 22781/ 2023, with cost 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 20th day of December 2023.

RESPONDENT

Through
 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)

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.