2025 (1) TMI 945 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Siddharth vs. State of U.P. 2021 (8) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT held that There is no force in argument advanced by the learned Special Counsel for the respondent that the applicants before grant of bail required to pass test of 45 of PMLA. The position would have been different had the applicants arrested during investigation. The investigating agency as mentioned hereinabove consciously preferred not to arrest the applicants during investigation or post filing of charge sheet. It is not in dispute that the FIR was registered on 19.02.2010 whereas the respondent filed a complaint arraying the applicants as accused in ECIR on 04.01.2021 i.e. after 11 years. The judgments relied on by learned counsel for the respondent state that the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA Act are to be satisfied but at the same time 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 and other co-accused persons against whom similar allegations were levelled have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon ble Supreme Court and by this Court therefore in the opinion of this Court the present is a fit case to extend the benefit under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 to the applicants. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the aforesaid offence they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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 and they shall abide by the conditions imposed. Conclusion - The circumstances and legal precedents justified such relief despite the stringent conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment revolves around the following core legal issues:

Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in money laundering cases.
The relevance of precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, regarding the necessity of arrest and custody in cases forwarded to the court under Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The impact of prior exoneration of the main accused by the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, on the applicants' bail application.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to Anticipatory Bail

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The applicants sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to offenses under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The legal framework also involves Section 45 of the PMLA, which sets stringent conditions for granting bail.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court considered the long duration since the FIR was registered and the lack of arrest or summons for the applicants during this period. The court also noted the exoneration of the main accused by the Adjudicating Authority and similar bail grants to co-accused by higher courts.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the applicants were implicated after a significant delay, and the main accused had been exonerated on similar allegations. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's guidance on non-necessity of arrest if custody is not required.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles from the Supreme Court's judgment in Satender Kumar Antil, which emphasizes that arrest is not mandatory if the prosecution does not require custody. The court also considered the fact that other co-accused were granted bail.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent opposed the bail, citing the need for compliance with Section 45 of the PMLA and the nature of economic offenses. The court balanced these arguments against the precedents and the applicants' cooperation with the investigation.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail, given the precedents and the circumstances of the case.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 45 of the PMLA requires the Public Prosecutor's opportunity to oppose bail and reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty. The court also considered precedents like Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI and Pankaj Grover vs. ED.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court acknowledged the stringent conditions under Section 45 but also considered the Supreme Court's guidance in Satender Kumar Antil, which allows for exceptions based on case specifics.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the main accused was exonerated, and similar allegations against co-accused had resulted in bail grants, indicating a lack of strong evidence against the applicants.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles from Satender Kumar Antil, emphasizing that the applicants' non-arrest and cooperation with the investigation weighed in favor of granting bail.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent argued for the necessity of satisfying Section 45's conditions, but the court found that the applicants' circumstances and precedents justified an exception.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the applicants need not satisfy the stringent conditions of Section 45 due to the precedents and lack of necessity for custody.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil...held that in a case where the prosecution does not require custody of the accused, there is no need for arrest when a case is sent to the magistrate under Section 170 of the Code."
Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that arrest is not mandatory if the prosecution does not require custody and emphasizes the importance of considering precedents and the specifics of each case.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, concluding that the circumstances and legal precedents justified such relief despite the stringent conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA.

The court's decision reflects a careful balancing of legal principles, precedents, and the specifics of the case, ultimately granting anticipatory bail to the applicants based on the lack of necessity for custody and the exoneration of the main accused.

← Previous Next →