Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
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
Back
Next 
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
Avtar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Enforcement Directorate – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J.
1. The present bail applications have been preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section 439 Cr. P.C. for the grant of regular bail in the case bearing No. ECIR/09/DLZO/2014 recorded by the Enforcement Directorate, under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA Act, 2002 in the case titled Enforcement Directorate v. A. Vennugopal Reddy.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint was filed by the ED in the present case before the learned Special Judge without the arrest. However, it has been submitted that after the filing of the complaint, production warrants were issued by the learned Special Court and on account of production warrants, the accused persons are not being released. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon an order of this Court dated 25.11.2022 in the Bail APPLN. 559/2022 titled as Rana Kapoor v. ED.
3. He submits that even otherwise rigour of Section 45 of the PMLA
The interpretation of Section 45 of the PMLA Act and the formal custody of accused persons in relation to bail applications.
The court held that the majority of funds alleged as proceeds of crime were received before the predicate offence, thus the conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA were not met, allowing bai....
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.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without charge framing is a significant factor for granting bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, prioritizing liberty in cases of extended custody.
The court emphasized the stricter conditions for bail under PMLA, reaffirming that prior denials remained effective unless significant changes in circumstances are demonstrated.
Accused in money laundering must meet stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, reflecting the severity of the offense and impact on ongoing investigations.
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