High Court’s Analysis on Enlargement on Bail in Money Laundering Case

1146/2021 and 1147/2021, by which, the High Court has allowed the said bail applications and has directed to enlarge respective respondent No 1 on bail in connection with the offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the PML Act, 2002) investigated by the Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad in F. That respective respondent

Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/dismissal-from-service-unauthorized-absence-and-national-security/

No 1 herein in respective appeals were arrested on 19.01.2021, therefore, they filed the present bail applications before the High Court to enlarge them on bail in connection with the aforesaid investigation/case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate.

1 Shri Nataraj, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has seriously erred in enlarging respective respondent No 1 – accused on bail.

3 It is submitted that the High Court has enlarged respective respondent

Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-high-court-judgement-on-quashing-of-criminal-proceedings-for-fir-195-of-2014/

No 1 on bail solely on the ground that the investigation has been completed and the chargesheet has been filed. Once, the enquiry/investigation against respective respondent No 1 is going on for the offences under the PML Act, 2002, the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 is required to be considered. [Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence [under this Act] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—] ( i ) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and ( ii ) 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— ( i ) the Director; or ( ii ) 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. 1

Even otherwise, the High Court has not at all considered the nature of allegations and seriousness of the offences alleged of money laundering and the offences under the PML Act, 2002. 2 Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the respective respondent No 1 that respective respondent No 1 were not named in the FIR with respect to the scheduled offence(s) and/or that all the other accused are discharged/acquitted in so far as the predicated offences are concerned, merely because other accused are acquitted/discharged, it cannot be a ground not to continue the investigation in respect of respective respondent No 1.

As observed hereinabove, the High Court has neither considered the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 nor has considered the seriousness of the offences alleged against accused for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 and the High Court has not at all considered the fact that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 is still going on and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the High Court enlarging respective respondent No 1 on bail are unsustainable and the matters are required to be remitted back to the High Court for afresh decision on the bail applications after taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove.

Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/dismissal-of-revenues-appeal-entitlement-of-assessing-officers-to-reassess-income/

The matters are remitted back to the High Court to consider the bail applications afresh in light of the observations made hereinabove and after respective respondent No 1 surrenders within a period of one week as ordered above.

Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Vs. ADITYA TRIPATHI (2023 INSC 531)

Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001401-001401 / 2023

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *