9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 688 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of anticipatory bail - Money Laundering - twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA Act satisfied or not - main accused was exonerated on identical allegations by the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the FIR was registered on 19.02.2010 whereas the respondent filed a complaint arraying the applicant as accused in ECIR on 04.01.2021 i.e. after 10 years. From the summons issued to the applicant, it is quite vivid that she was permitted to appear through an authorized person and it cannot be said that she did not cooperate in the investigation. According to the proviso appended to Section 45 of the PMLA Act, a woman may be granted anticipatory bail. The judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil 2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT cannot be lost sight of as the applicant is a lady and she cooperated in the investigation of the matter and other co-accused persons against whom similar allegations were made, have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon ble Supreme Court and by this Court, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present is a fit case to extend the benefit under Section 438 of Cr. P.C. to the applicant. The anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA Act in granting anticipatory bail. 2. Consideration of anticipatory bail for a woman under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. Compliance with the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA Act. 4. Precedents and judgments relevant to granting anticipatory bail in economic offences. Summary: 1. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA Act in granting anticipatory bail: The court discussed the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA Act, which states that no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application, and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The proviso to Section 45, however, allows for the possibility of bail for women. 2. Consideration of anticipatory bail for a woman under Section 438 Cr.P.C.: The applicant, being a woman and having cooperated with the investigation, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court noted that the applicant was permitted to appear through an authorized representative due to her medical condition and had not been directed to appear before the investigating agency for 11 years. The court emphasized the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA Act, which allows for anticipatory bail for women. 3. Compliance with the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA Act: The respondent argued that the applicant must satisfy the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA Act. However, the court considered the judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, which categorizes offences under special acts like PMLA and emphasizes that the law enunciated would equally apply in anticipatory bail cases. The court also noted that other co-accused persons had been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court and the High Court. 4. Precedents and judgments relevant to granting anticipatory bail in economic offences: The court referred to several judgments, including Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, which highlighted that economic offences constitute a separate class and should be treated with a different approach in bail matters. The court also discussed the judgment in Siddharth vs. State of U.P., which clarified that Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not impose an obligation to arrest every accused at the time of filing the charge sheet. The court also considered the judgment in M. Gopal Reddy, which emphasized the applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA Act in anticipatory bail applications. Conclusion: Given the applicant's cooperation with the investigation, her status as a woman, and the precedents set by the Supreme Court and High Court in similar cases, the court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. The application was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, subject to certain conditions to ensure a fair and expeditious trial. The trial court was instructed not to be influenced by the observations made in this order.
|
