Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Ramchand Karunakaran – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1650 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6061 of 2020)
Decided On : 23-09-2022
Money Laundering - Bail Application - The court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant, who had been in custody for more than three years in connection with the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The court considered the entirety of the matter, the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen, and the status of other accused in the case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, accused of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, had been in custody for more than three years. Other accused in the case had not yet been arrested, and charges were yet to be framed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant, being a senior citizen and having completed more than three years of custody, was entitled to the relief of bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail considering the duration of custody and the status of other accused in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the entirety of the matter, the appellant's senior citizen status, and the fact that other accused in the case had not yet been arrested or had charges framed against them.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and directed the trial court to release the appellant on bail with specific conditions.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Bail Application No.361 of 2020.
3. The appellant, Original Accused No. vi in P.M.L.A. Special Case No.6 of 2019 on the file of City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge, is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, the PML Act). The scheduled or predicate offence in the instant case pertain to (a) offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in terms of F.I.R. No.253 of 2018 dated 06.12.2018 registered with Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi; and (b) offences under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with Section 120B and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to Criminal Complaint No.20 of 2019 dated 30.05.2019 filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation office, Mumbai.
4. It appears that on the ground that the sanction issued in the said predicate offences suffered from non-application of mind, the order issuing sanction was quashed by the High Court. The said order is presently under challenge in SLP (Crl.) No.2559 of 2019.
5. Even while quashing the order, the High Court had stayed the operation of its order, which order of interim stay is presently continuing as a result of directions issued by this Court. It was, however, made clear that the order of interim relief so granted by this Court would not in any way affect the orders granting bail to the accused.
6. We are presently concerned with the proceedings arising out of the complaint filed under the provisions of PML Act. In the instant case, the appellant was taken in custody on 19.06.2019 and has remained in custody since then. Thus, the appellant has completed more than three years of actual custody in connection with the offence in respect of PML Act.
7. It has been brought to our notice that Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 have not yet been arrested and though the cognizance in the matter has been taken, charges are yet to be framed.
8. Considering the entirety of the matter and the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief of bail. We therefore, allow this appeal and while setting aside the order passed by the High Court direct as under:
(a) The appellant shall be produced before the concerned trial Court within three days from today.
(b) The trial Court shall release the appellant on bail subject to such conditions as the trial Court may deem appropriate to impose.
(c) The appellant shall deposit his passport, if not deposited earlier, with the trial Court.
(d) The appellant shall mark his presence in the office of the Enforcement Directorate every second and fourth Monday between 11.00 AM and 01.00 PM in a register earmarked for the purposes.
(e) The appellant shall not misuse his liberty nor shall he attempt to influence any of the witnesses.
(f) The appellant shall cooperate with the proceedings before the trial Court and shall appear in-person unless his presence is exempted by the trial Court.
(g) Any infraction of these conditions shall entail in cancellation of the relief for bail
9. With these observations, the appeal is allowed and pending applications stand disposed of.
The court considered the duration of custody, the status of other accused, and the appellant's senior citizen status in granting bail.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the mandate of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act must be considered when dealing with a prayer for anticipatory bail in ....
Prolonged pre-trial detention without charge framing is a significant factor for granting bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, prioritizing liberty in cases of extended custody.
After cognizance of an offence under PMLA is taken, the Enforcement Directorate cannot arrest the accused, impacting the applicability of bail conditions stipulated in Section 45.
Prolonged incarceration can lead to bail grant in economic offence cases even under stringent PMLA provisions if no feasible trial timeframe exists.
The court's decision highlighted the lack of objective satisfaction about the petitioner's guilt, the divergent views expressed by the High Courts and the Supreme Court, and the personal liberty of t....
The provisions of S.45 of the PMLA are mandatory for bail considerations, overriding general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Personal liberty must be preserved; serious medical conditions warranting special care can justify bail under the PMLA's proviso to Section 45(1).
Grant of bail – Merely because for predicated offences charge-sheet might have been filed it cannot be a ground to release accused on bail in connection with scheduled offences under PML Act, 2002.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
