2023 (5) TMI 527 - SC - Money Laundering

Challange to the bail granted by the HC - Money Laundering - scheduled offence - It is submitted that while enlarging respective respondent No. 1 accused on bail the High Court has not properly appreciated Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - At the outset, it is required to be noted that respective respondent No. 1 accused are facing the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences and for the offences of money laundering under Section 3 of the PML Act punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. An enquiry/investigation is still going on by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences in connection with FIR No. 12/2019. Once, the enquiry/investigation against respective respondent No. 1 is going on for the offences under the PML Act, 2002, the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 is required to be considered. From the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court, it appears that what is weighed with the High Court is that chargesheet has been filed against respective respondent No. 1 accused and therefore, the investigation is completed. However, the High Court has failed to notice and appreciate that the investigation with respect to the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 by the Enforcement Directorate is still going on. Merely because, for the predicated offences the chargesheet might have been filed it cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail in connection with the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002. Investigation for the predicated offences and the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act are different and distinct. Therefore, the High Court has taken into consideration the irrelevant consideration. The investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 is till going on. The High Court has neither considered the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 nor has considered the seriousness of the offences alleged against accused for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 and the High Court has not at all considered the fact that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 is still going on and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the High Court enlarging respective respondent No. 1 on bail are unsustainable and the matters are required to be remitted back to the High Court for afresh decision on the bail applications. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with bail applications in connection with offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 investigated by the Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad. The High Court had allowed the bail applications and directed to enlarge the respective respondent on bail.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1:
The Enforcement Directorate appealed against the High Court's decision to grant bail to the accused in connection with scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002.

The FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal, implicated several individuals and companies for various offences. The accused were charged under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC, among others. The investigation revealed tampering with e-Tenders to manipulate bids. The accused were also found to have committed offences under the PML Act, 2002. The accused filed bail applications before the High Court, which granted bail. The Enforcement Directorate challenged this decision.

Issue 2:
The Enforcement Directorate argued that the High Court erred in granting bail without considering the seriousness of the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002.

The Enforcement Directorate contended that the investigation was ongoing and the High Court should have considered Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002, which restricts bail for accused persons. The High Court's decision to grant bail based on the completion of the investigation and filing of the chargesheet was deemed inappropriate.

Issue 3:
The Senior Advocates representing the accused defended the High Court's decision to grant bail, citing the completion of the investigation and the filing of the chargesheet.

They argued that since other accused individuals had been acquitted or discharged, the accused should be granted bail. They claimed that the accused had been on bail since March 2021, and therefore, the High Court's decision should not be overturned.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to consider the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 and the seriousness of the money laundering allegations. The investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for scheduled offences was ongoing, and the High Court's decision to grant bail was unsustainable. The appeals were allowed, the bail orders were quashed, and the accused were directed to surrender within a week for the High Court to reconsider the bail applications.