Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
RAHUL BHARTI
Mohammad Shafi Dar – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the pleadings and the documents therewith.
2. The petitioner is suffering continuing judicial custody on account of his arrest carried out by the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED” in short) Srinagar Zonal Office by reference to a Case No. ECIR/SRZO/04/2021 dated 31.03.2021.
3. The petitioner came to be arrested on 30.11.2023 by the ED in purported exercise of its power to arrest vested under section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
4. The factual background in which the ED came to emerge on the scene and register an Enforcement Case Information Report (“ECIR” in short) No. ECIR/SRZO/04/2021 dated 31.03.2021 needs to be set out first before coming to deal with the facts and circumstances of the present case in light of which the petitioner is pressing for and seeking bail under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with section 44(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
5. The petitioner is claimed to have been elected to be on the Board of Directors o
Bail application – For sake of consideration of grant or non-grant of bail, exercise in name of application of judicial mind to be done by Court has to be stretched or restricted only to prima facie ....
The court emphasized the need for prima facie evidence and considered the specific provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in granting bail to the petitioner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion to grant bail to women accused under the first proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as there were no reasonable grounds for believing that she had committed an off....
The court emphasized that in economic offences under the PMLA, bail is not granted unless the accused proves they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The conditions for granting bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are mandatory, requiring the court to be satisfied of the accused's non-guilt and lack of likelihood to commit further of....
The court established that under the PMLA, an accused can be convicted for money laundering even if not formally accused in the predicate offense, emphasizing the independent and serious nature of ec....
The offence of money laundering under the PMLA is independent, and involvement in proceeds of crime suffices for liability; stringent conditions for bail must be met.
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
Listen Article