2014 (8) TMI 1163 - HC - Money Laundering

Concession of pre-arrest bail - offence under PMLA - Held that - There is no absolute par in granting the concession of pre-arrest bail in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Petitioner in this case is entitled for pre-arrest bail - the interim order dated 2.7.2014 is hereby confirmed. The petitioner will remain on bail against the bail bond/surety bond already furnished by him subject to the condition that he will not tamper with the evidence in any manner and will not cause obstruction in the proceedings of the complaint case and will not absent himself without any sufficient cause and that he will not commit the similar offence of which he is accused of during the course of trial.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for pre-arrest bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Applicability of the amended Schedule of the Act.
3. Interpretation of previous judgments regarding bail in similar circumstances under the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, linked to an FIR alleging misappropriation. The complainant objected, citing Section 45 of the Act, which restricts bail for offenses punishable by over three years' imprisonment unless certain conditions are met. The petitioner had previously been granted bail in the FIR. The petitioner argued that the Act's provisions did not apply as the offense predated the amendment to the Act's Schedule. The judgment revealed the petitioner's acquittal of specific IPC offenses.

Issue 2:
The complainant contended that the Enforcement Directorate's complaint was separate from the FIR and ongoing investigations might uncover additional properties. Citing precedents, the complainant argued against granting bail during ongoing proceedings under the Act. The judge reviewed the facts, previous judgments, and found no absolute bar to granting pre-arrest bail under the Act. The petitioner was granted bail based on several grounds, including past bail grant, ongoing trial, and appearance before the court.

Issue 3:
The judgment considered previous cases where bail was denied in similar circumstances under the Act. However, the judge emphasized the need to assess each case individually. The petitioner's eligibility for bail was supported by factors such as prior bail, ongoing trial, and compliance with court appearances. The interim bail order was confirmed, subject to specific conditions to ensure the petitioner's cooperation with legal proceedings and prevention of any misconduct during the trial.

In conclusion, the judgment granted the petitioner pre-arrest bail based on the specific circumstances of the case, including past bail grant, ongoing trial, and compliance with court appearances. The decision highlighted the need for a case-by-case assessment regarding bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, emphasizing the importance of upholding legal procedures and preventing potential offenses during the trial.