9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1493 - SCH - Money LaunderingLegality of bail order - Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - it is submitted that the High Court wrongly released both the respondents on bail without having regard to the gravity of the offence and without considering the restrictive provisions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - HELD THAT - So far as the position of trial is concerned, the same is at the stage of framing of charges and investigation is complete. As both the respondents in these petitions have been enlarged on bail four years back and further that they have already suffered about three years imprisonment in the predicate offences, we do not think any benefit would accrue to the investigating agency by taking them again in custody. In the event the prosecution finds that these two respondents are not cooperating in the trial, or there are any subsequent developments requiring their detention, the Enforcement Directorate shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before this Court. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The legality of bail orders passed by the High Court for 'Pankaj Trivedi' and 'Nitin Mohindra' under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Judgment Summary: The Enforcement Directorate challenged two bail orders issued by the High Court for 'Pankaj Trivedi' and 'Nitin Mohindra'. The Enforcement Directorate argued that the High Court erred in releasing the respondents on bail without considering the seriousness of the offense and the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA. Both parties confirmed that the trial was at the stage of framing charges and the investigation was complete. Since the respondents had been out on bail for four years and had already served about three years in prison for the underlying offenses, the Supreme Court decided that re-arresting them would not benefit the investigating agency. However, the Enforcement Directorate was granted the liberty to seek bail cancellation if the respondents hindered the trial or if new developments required their detention. The petitions were disposed of accordingly, and any pending applications were also resolved.
|
