, who was arrested on alleged charges of collecting and laundering funds of over Rs 20 crore for the banned organisation){kind=link}
The Supreme Court has granted bail to Abdul Razak Peediyakkal, an alleged member of the Popular Front of India (PFI), who was arrested on alleged charges of collecting and laundering funds of over Rs 20 crore for the banned organisation.
The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh on Friday granted bail to the appellant on the grounds that the material witnesses had been examined in the case and that all other co-accused in the matter had been granted bail.
The top court of the country further took note of the fact that Peediyakkal had been in custody since March 10, 2022.
The Division Bench directed the trial court to impose certain conditions on the accused while granting bail to him.
Peediyakkal was directed to appear before the investigating officer of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) once a week and not to leave the state of Uttar Pradesh before the completion of the trial. He was further directed to surrender his passport, if not already done.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju vehemently opposed the bail on the grounds that the appellant had been involved in terrorist activities and was accused of collecting funds for the same.
Appearing for ED, ASG Raju argued that the roles of the co-accused who have already been granted bail were different from appellant, adding that Peediyakkal’s role was much graver.
The Apex Court, however, remarked that in case the appellant violated the bail conditions, the ED may seek cancellation of bail.
In December 2021, the ED had conducted raids on the residence of Peediyakkal as well as the Munnar Villa Vista Project (MVVP) site. The national agency claimed that it found several discrepancies in the receipt of suspicious foreign funds from abroad and also in cash expenses incurred and recorded in the books of accounts.
It then arrested Peediyakkal and filed a charge sheet against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act before a Special PMLA Court in Lucknow.
The charge sheet alleged that Peediyakkal and co-accused in the case hatched a conspiracy to raise funds in India as well as abroad for the purpose of using the same for PFI’s unlawful activities.
It further alleged that Peediyakkal was the largest shareholder of MVVP, which was set up allegedly with the motive to launder money collected from abroad and in India.
As per the national agency, the appellant owned some other companies as well, which were being used to collect funds to be utilised for the PFI’s activities.
Earlier, the Allahabad High Court had refused to grant bail to the alleged PFI member on the grounds that he cannot claim parity with co-accused Siddique Kappan as Kappan was facing the allegation of Rs 5,000 being transferred in the bank account of co-accused Atikur Rahman, whereas in the instant case against Peediyakkal, the proceeds of crime were in crores.
Earlier in July, ASG Raju had vehemently opposed the bail application of Peediyakkal on the grounds that his coming out on bail would pose a threat to the security of the nation.
The Bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh, however, disagreed with the ASG and said that the nation was not that weak.
Noting that the nation was quite strong, the top court of the country said that there was no reason to believe that people could destroy it in any case.
It further said that the ASG should refrain from demonising it every time by saying such things, adding that when the time would come, people would themselves answer this.
Noting that the petitioner was not a flight risk person, the Bench inquired Raju about the bail conditions which would not allow Peediyakkal to leave the country.
It further asked the ASG the reason to keep the petitioner behind the bars when he has already spent a year inside jail.
The ASG said that there were protected witnesses and if Peediyakkal was out, those witnesses may turn hostile. He further contended that some witnesses were associated with PFI and that the appellant was capable of threatening them.
Putting forward his arguments, Raju mentioned a case, wherein people escaped the country through Nepal, even after their passports were taken. He said it became very difficult to monitor such people since they had many secret places.
The Apex Court then sought to know from the ASG that when all other accused in the matter were out on bail, why should Peediyakkal be kept behind the bars.
It observed that since the alleged PFI member was living abroad, it was possible that he could have collected money and given it to the banned organisation. However, there was no proof to directly link him to the organisation, added the Bench.
Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave contended that his client would report to the court, NIA or ED.
The top court of the country then told Dave that his client could report to the police or whichever authority twice a week.
Putting forward his arguments, Raju said that during the tribunal proceedings to ban PFI, they had come across data, which was very scary.
He alleged that PFI had paramilitary personnel in their organisation, who conducted parades and threatened people. He emphasised that it was a ‘very, very dangerous organisation’.
The Apex Court then asked the ASG to find out how many protected witnesses were involved in the matter and inform the court about it. The Bench further directed Raju to apprise the court on the progress of trial and adjourned the case.
(Case title: Abdul Razak Peediyakkal vs Union of India)