Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 14 - HC - Money LaunderingIssues: 1. Bail applications filed by petitioners under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002. 2. Interpretation of Section 45 of PMLA 2002. 3. Application of twin conditions for grant of bail. 4. Effect of earlier dismissal of bail applications by the court. 5. Retrospective operation of amendments to PMLA 2002. 6. Consideration of Section 436A of Cr.P.C. for release on bail. Analysis: 1. The petitioners, including directors and employees of a company involved in financial irregularities, filed bail applications under PMLA 2002. The company collected substantial funds from the public through deceptive schemes, leading to investigations by SEBI and law enforcement agencies for offenses under IPC and PMLA. The petitioners were previously arrested and released on bail, but subsequent challenges by the prosecution resulted in the Supreme Court remanding the bail applications back to the High Court for reconsideration. 2. The court extensively analyzed the scope of Section 45 of PMLA 2002, emphasizing the statutory bar for granting bail in cases related to money laundering offenses. The court highlighted the importance of considering the twin conditions prescribed under the Act for bail eligibility, especially in light of recent judicial precedents upholding the constitutional validity of Section 45. 3. The court reiterated that the petitioners failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail, as observed in previous orders and upheld by the Supreme Court. The prosecution argued that the petitioners' conduct and lack of cooperation during investigations did not warrant discretionary relief, emphasizing the need for continued detention pending trial. 4. Emphasizing the lack of change in circumstances since the earlier dismissal of bail applications, the court upheld its previous findings and declined to entertain the current bail applications. Judicial discipline and the Supreme Court's directive to expedite the trial further influenced the court's decision to deny bail, urging cooperation from both parties for swift trial proceedings. 5. The court addressed the retrospective operation of amendments to PMLA 2002, citing relevant judgments and clarifications that affirmed the applicability of twin conditions under Section 45. Rejecting the argument that the amendments should not apply retrospectively, the court maintained its stance on bail eligibility criteria based on existing legal provisions. 6. Considering the petitioners' duration of custody and the absence of fulfillment of Section 436A of Cr.P.C., the court concluded that bail could not be granted at the current stage. The petitioners' failure to challenge previous orders and the court's consistent findings on bail conditions further supported the dismissal of the bail applications.
|