2023 (10) TMI 1370 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - opening bank account in the name of the villagers by using documents given by the villagers and forging their signatures - money deposited in such bank accounts was channelized as share capital in M/s. Prime Ispat Limited through shell companies - application is a lady suffering from various ailments - twin requirement of Section 45 of PMLA satisfied or not - 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 suffering from certain ailments may be granted anticipatory bail. The decision cited by learned counsel for the respondent states 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 VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANR. 2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT cannot be lost sight of as the applicant is a lady suffering from various ailments 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 opinion of this Court, the present is a fit case to extend the benefit under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the applicant. 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 and she shall abide by the conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Compliance with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act).
3. Consideration of the applicant's medical condition and gender.
4. Previous judgments and legal precedents relevant to anticipatory bail and economic offences.

Summary:

1. Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The applicant filed a first bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, related to Crime No. ECIR/01/NGR/2011, renumbered as ECIR/RPSZO/05/2013, registered at the Enforcement Directorate for offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA Act.

2. Compliance with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act):
The court considered the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA Act, which necessitate that the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application, and the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit any offence while on bail. The court also noted the proviso that allows for bail if the accused is a woman or is sick or infirm.

3. Consideration of the applicant's medical condition and gender:
The applicant, being a woman suffering from various ailments, including kidney transplantation and angioplasty, was argued to be entitled to anticipatory bail. The court acknowledged her medical conditions and the fact that she cooperated with the investigation, as evidenced by her permitted representation through an authorized person due to her medical condition.

4. Previous judgments and legal precedents relevant to anticipatory bail and economic offences:
The court referred to several judgments, including Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, and others, which highlighted the stringent provisions for bail in economic offences and the necessity for the accused to cooperate with the investigation. The court also noted that other co-accused in similar cases had been granted anticipatory bail by higher courts, including the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, considering her medical condition, gender, and cooperation with the investigation. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety and to comply with specific conditions, including appearing before the trial court on all given dates and not involving herself in similar offences in the future. The observations made were solely for the purpose of the bail application and should not influence the trial court.