9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 511 - SC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - Money Laundering - ordinary offence under the Indian Penal Code - predicate offences - mandate of Section 45 of the PMLA Act coming into play or not - HELD THAT - It is not a question of taking objection but the duty of court to examine the jurisdictional facts including the mandate of Section 45 of the PMLA Act, which must be kept in mind. It is deemed appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and order and relegate the parties before the High Court for reconsideration of Criminal Petition afresh for grant of anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with stated PMLA offence - The High Court may hear the remanded proceedings expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Grant of anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by the High Court without considering the mandate of Section 45 of the PMLA Act. Analysis: The Supreme Court reviewed the judgment and order of the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent in connection with an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Court observed that the High Court treated the matter as a regular bail application under the Indian Penal Code, failing to consider the specific provisions of the PMLA Act, particularly Section 45. The Court emphasized that even though the PMLA offence is linked to ordinary law offences, the requirements of Section 45 of the PMLA Act must be taken into account when considering anticipatory bail applications related to PMLA offences. The respondent's counsel referred to a previous judgment to support their argument, but the Court clarified that the principles of Section 45 of the PMLA Act must be applied when dealing with anticipatory bail applications for PMLA offences. The Court highlighted that it is the duty of the court to examine jurisdictional facts, including the provisions of the PMLA Act, regardless of whether objections were raised earlier. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh consideration of the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the PMLA offence. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to expedite the proceedings and make a decision within four weeks from the receipt of the order. The interim protection granted to the respondent was extended for four weeks, subject to the outcome of the reconsidered petition. The Court emphasized that the High Court should assess the case on its merits and in compliance with the law. Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of in line with the aforementioned directions, and any pending applications were also resolved accordingly.
|
