2017 (2) TMI 1205 - HC - Money Laundering

Interim bail - Prevention of Money Laundering - Held that - It is seriously doubtful whether rigors of Section 45 of PMLA would be attracted in this case as the petitioner is not accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years in Part A of the Schedule attached to PMLA, 2002. Similarly, since the petitioner was not subjected to custodial interrogation regardless of express powers given to E.D under Section 19 of the Act, we see no reason whatsoever as to why the petitioner s liberty be curtailed by sending him to judicial custody at this juncture. At best, with a view to ensure that the outcome of the complaint is not affected in any manner, the petitioner can be restrained from alienating and/or creating any third party rights in respect of his attached properties or such other properties which are subject matter of the complaint and/or are under investigation. Thus the instant petition is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner on surrender before the learned Special Judge, Patiala shall furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the said Court and he shall be admitted to interim bail

Summary

Issues:
1. Pre-arrest bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Allegations against family members and co-accused.
3. Investigation status and petitioner's cooperation.
4. Application of Section 45 of PMLA.
5. Custodial interrogation and liberty of the petitioner.
6. Conditions for granting pre-arrest bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The complaint is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Patiala.

2. The complaint involves several accused persons, including the petitioner's brother and nephew, against whom specific allegations of manufacturing and selling illicit drugs have been made. The company in which they are directors is also a co-accused.

3. The petitioner, however, has not been implicated in any case under the NDPS Act and is not a director in the company mentioned in the complaint. The petitioner cooperated during the investigation, appearing whenever summoned by the Enforcement Directorate.

4. The court doubted whether the stringent provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA would be applicable in this case, as the petitioner was not accused of an offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding three years as per the Act's schedule.

5. Since the petitioner was not taken into custody during the investigation and was cooperative, the court found no justification for curtailing his liberty by sending him to judicial custody at that stage. The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail to prevent any unnecessary detention.

6. The court imposed specific conditions for the petitioner's bail, including restrictions on leaving the country without permission, continuous appearance before the Special Court, and compliance with directives regarding attached properties. The Special Judge was instructed not to release the attached properties, and the petitioner was required to adhere to any additional conditions set by the court.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal aspects considered by the court in granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner under the PMLA, emphasizing factors such as investigation status, cooperation, and the applicability of relevant legal provisions.