2022 (12) TMI 1391 - SCH - Money Laundering

Prayer for adjournment declined - petitioner seeking adjournment due to personal difficulty of the instructing counsel - HELD THAT - After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.12.2018, whereby the High Court declined the prayer of pre-arrest bail of the petitioner - On being queried if any of the principal accused person had been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail in these matters, inter alia, involving the offences under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner frankly answered in the negative. In any case, so far the impugned orders are concerned, we are satisfied that the High Court has rightly declined the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner, particularly looking to the nature of accusations. The grant of bail or even pre-arrest bail to any other accused will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner so far as the prayer for pre-arrest bail is concerned. Therefore, these petitions are required to be dismissed. However, taking note of the overall circumstances, including that the petitioner is a lady in about 58 years of age, we deem it appropriate to provide that if the petitioner surrenders within a week from today and applies for regular bail, her bail plea may be considered by the Trial Court expeditiously and in priority. The interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue for a period a period of one week or until the bail plea of the petitioner is considered by the Trial Court, whichever be the earlier. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
2. Consideration of bail plea by the Trial Court.
3. Circumstances affecting the decision.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner was initially granted interim protection, but the High Court later declined the prayer for pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the High Court's decision, considering the nature of accusations, especially under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Court noted that the grant of bail to other accused individuals did not automatically benefit the petitioner's case. Therefore, the petitions for pre-arrest bail were dismissed.

2. Despite dismissing the pre-arrest bail petitions, the Supreme Court acknowledged the petitioner's circumstances, being a 58-year-old lady. The Court allowed the petitioner to surrender within a week and apply for regular bail. It directed the Trial Court to consider her bail plea promptly and with priority. The interim protection granted to the petitioner would continue for a week or until the Trial Court's decision on bail, whichever is earlier.

3. The Supreme Court clarified that its decision did not reflect on the case's merits, leaving all aspects open for the Trial Court's consideration in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that the dismissal of the petitions did not imply any judgment on the case's substance. All pending applications were also disposed of along with the main petitions, ensuring a comprehensive resolution of the legal proceedings.