IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition Nos. 1146/2021 and 1147/2021, by which, the High Court has allowed the said bail applications and has directed to enlarge respective respondent No. 1 on bail in connection with the offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the PML Act, 2002) investigated by the Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad in F. No. ECIR/HYZO/36/2020 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the Directorate of Enforcement has preferred the present appeals.

2. That an FIR No. 12/2019 dated 10.04.2019 was registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal, naming about 20 persons/companies as accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 7(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was found in the preliminary enquiry that e- Tender Nos. 91,93, and 94 for total works amounting to Rs. 1769.00 crores of Madhya Pradesh Water Corporation were tempered to change the price bid of M/s GVPR Engineers Limited, M/s The Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited and M/s IMC (sic) Project India Limited to make them the lowest bidders. Subsequent to the registration of the FIR, Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal conducted investigation and filed the charge-sheet before the competent court on 04.07.2019. That on study of charge-sheet, it was found that the accused have also committed the offences under the PML Act, 2002 as the offences for which they were charge-sheeted, namely, Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, are also scheduled offences and therefore, the Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad had initiated money laundering investigation in the F. No. ECIR/HYZO/36/2020. That respective respondent No. 1 herein in respective appeals were arrested on 19.01.2021, therefore, they filed the present bail applications before the High Court to enlarge them on bail in connection with the aforesaid investigation/case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate. By the impugned orders, the High Court has directed to enlarge respondent No. 1 in respective appeals on bail. The impugned orders passed by the High Court enlarging respondent No. 1 in respective appeals on bail in the case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, are the subject matters of present appeals.

3. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG, has appeared on behalf of the appellant – Enforcement Directorate and Shri Rakesh Khanna and Shri Aman Lekhi, learned Senior Advocates have appeared on behalf of respective respondent No. 1.

3.1 Shri Nataraj, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has seriously erred in enlarging respective respondent No. 1 – accused on bail. 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.

3.2 It is further submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated and/or considered the seriousness of the offences which are scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002.

3.3 It is submitted that the High Court has enlarged respective respondent No. 1 on bail solely on the ground that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. It is submitted that however, the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate is still going on and therefore, it is wrong to say that the investigation has been completed.

4. While opposing the present appeals, learned Senior Advocate(s) appearing on behalf of respective respondent No. 1 have vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of