Back
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA
Arun Pati Tripathi S/o Late Shri Prakash Pati Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement Raipur – Respondent
ORDER :
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.
By way of present application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 45 of the PMLA on behalf of the applicant herein, is seeking grant of regular bail in ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 dated 11.04.2024.
2. The applicant was arrested in pursuance of ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 of 2024 registered with Raipur Zone dated 11.04.2024 by the Directorate of Enforcement. The ED had registered the above stated ECIR pursuant to the predicate offence which was registered by EOW, Raipur dated 17.01.2024 as FIR No. 04 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420,467, 468,471 of IPC and Section 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case of the applicant falls under Schedule One, Part -A (offence under the IPC) and para -8 (Offence under PC Act) as per Section 3 & 4 of the PMLA.
3. It is submitted that the apart from the present case, the applicant has following criminal antecedents against him.
i) FIR No. 196/2023 registered by PS Kasna, Greater Noida, Commissionerate Guatam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 468,471,473,484 and 120-B of IPC. The charge sheet has been filed agains
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially in serious economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, where the gravity of charges necessitates stringent scrutiny.
The court emphasized that in economic offences, especially under the PMLA, bail should not be granted unless the accused demonstrates they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, due to the serious nature of the allegations and the evidence presented.
The court emphasized that bail under the PMLA requires satisfaction of twin conditions regarding the accused's guilt and likelihood of committing further offences, which were not met in this case.
In economic offences, bail is not a right; the burden rests on the applicant to show no risk of interference with justice or likelihood of guilt, reinforced by the position of the accused.
The court emphasized that bail is the exception, not the rule, particularly in serious economic offences, where the risk of tampering with evidence and flight is significant.
The court emphasized that bail is not a right in cases involving serious economic offences, particularly where substantial evidence of corruption exists.
The court held that the seriousness of economic offences under the PMLA necessitates stringent bail conditions, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration does not automatically warrant bail if substan....
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; economic offences necessitate careful consideration due to their serious implications on public interest and the economy.
The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial and liberty, allowing bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after 15 months of custody, citing no likelihood of trial commencement.
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
