The seriousness of the offence and the accused's conduct during investigations are crucial factors in determining the grant of bail in money laundering cases.

ORDER

1. This Bail Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, "PMLA") by one of the accused for grant of bail in Complaint Case No.263/2020, ECIR/05/HIU/2018 registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.

2. The case alleged against the applicant is that he had operated a firm for money laundering in conspiracy with his brother, namely, Naresh Jain. It is alleged that he along with the co-accused and other employees, had incorporated and operated 450 Indian entities and 104 foreign entities for routing proceeds of crime and also enabling purchase of offices and properties as if with untainted funds. It is alleged that the co-accused Naresh Jain had placed funds in his companies and layering was done by routing the proceeds of crime into various companies that had dummy shareholders and Directors and were used for opening bank accounts, using identity proofs and documents of real persons, but changing photographs and addresses. Naresh Jain was arrested on 1st September, 2020 under Section 19 of the PMLA. The investigations have traced proceeds of the crime to the tune of Rs.5,65,11,22,269/-, but the extent of money laundering was more than rupees ninety six thousand crores. Further investigations were proceeding, but the first complaint and the supplementary complaints had been filed against the accused persons, including the present applicant.

3. Mr. Naveen Malhotra, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the present application has been moved in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court dated 4th January, 2022 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.7942/2021. It was submitted that charge had not been framed and there were about 150 witnesses to be examined and there was no possibility of a quick trial. Therefore, in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court, the present application has been moved, since the Supreme Court clearly did not intend that the applicant should remain in custody. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgements in Fakhrey Alam v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 532; Kamlesh Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 270; Tunde Gbaja v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 450; C. Parthasarthy v. Director of Enforcement, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1075; Akula Ravi Teja v. State of A.P., 2020 SCC OnLine AP 1464; P.M.C. Mercantile Private Ltd. v. State, 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 10242; S.M. Furtado v. C.B.I., 1996 SCC OnLine Ker 112.

4. It was submitted that the applicant was entitled to bail as Section 19 of the PMLA was not invoked as he had never been arrested. Without a recording under Section 19 of the PMLA an opinion that the accused was guilty of the offence, the rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA would not apply. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.

5. It was further submitted that even as per Clause (x) of the Prosecution complaint, the allegations have been made only against Naresh Jain, who may be the main accused. However, there was nothing to connect the applicant with any of the companies belonging to Naresh Jain. The companies with which connections were sought to be established with the applicant were those which did not belong to Naresh Jain and in which he was not a director. The applicant's own company was M/s. Jayna Infrastructure Limited, and he was into steel plant and other businesses, such as building projects in Indore in collaboration with other companies. The allegations in the first complaint and the second complaint were the very same allegations and against the very same accused. Therefore, nothing new could be discovered against the applicant. The statements that were made by the applicant to the Directorate officials were completely exculpatory, as he had denied any knowledge of the activities of co-accused Naresh Jain and denied having