ORDER

This matter has been taken up through Video Conferencing.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. This application is for grant of bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 09 of 2018 wherein cognizance has been taken for offences under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money- Laundering Act, 2002 against the petitioner.

4. Allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner amazed huge amount of movable and immovable property from his criminal activity in connection with twenty-six criminal cases against the petitioner. Most of them were registered for offences “Scheduled” under Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

5. The prayer for bail is on the ground:—

(a) That the petitioner is in jail since 14.06.2019 after remand in this case from some other case and investigation of the case is already complete. There is no chance of conclusion of the trial in the present exceptional circumstance of lockdown due to COVID-19 spread-up. The petitioner is ready to cooperate with the trial.

(b) The basis of launching of present prosecution is twenty-six criminal cases referred in the complaint petition. Out of that twenty resulted in acquittal prior to the filing of the present complaint case and in the rest cases FIR of the two cases are against unknown and two FIRs were lodged by the police. Hence, it cannot be casually inferred that the property of the petitioner was proceeds of the crime of the referred cases.

(c) The allegation is of discovery of property of more than 98 lakhs and proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 empowers the Court to grant bail if the allegation of Money Laundering is of less than one crore rupees.

6. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2020(1) BLJ 200 SC for the legal principles to be considered while considering the prayer for bail.

7. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India strongly opposed the prayer for bail on the ground:—

(i) That the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was enacted to punish the economic offenders as the offences not only affect the individual rather causes harms to the community at large and even to the State Exchequer. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the economic offences are a class in itself and the gravity is an extremely relevant factor while considering bail.

(ii) The principles of P. Chidambaram’s case (supra) is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of this case because the petitioner is carrying twenty-six criminal case against him which was not a case in the matter of P. Chidambaram.

(iii) Learned Additional Solicitor General contends that the petitioner is not a law abiding citizen. In the year 2014 itself, in a judicial order, the High Court had directed the petitioner to surrender but the petitioner did not surrender and kept the investigation lingering for long. In the event of release, there is chances that the petitioner would tamper with the evidence.

(iv) Learned Senior Counsel contends that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 clearly stipulates that the accused can be granted bail only when the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and the accused is not likely to commit the offence in the event of release.

8. In P. Chidambaran’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered its earlier judgments on the issue of grant or refusal of prayer for bail and concluded in para 21 of the judgment as follows:—

“21. Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the