The court upheld that under Section 45 of the PML Act, the applicant failed to demonstrate that there were reasonable grounds for believing he was not guilty and unlikely to commit further offenses while on bail.

ORDER :

M. R. Mengdey, J.

1. The applicant has filed this application under Sections 187 (2) and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 4 5 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for enlarging the applicant on regular bail in connection with the File No.ECIR/AMZO/01 of 2019 registered with Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Section 3 r/w. 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 14.08.2024. After his arrest, the applicant had approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.22347 of 2024 seeking regular bail. The said application was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 21.02.2025. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the applicant had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4036 of 2025. During the course of hearing of the said proceedings before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court had noticed that the applicant had not brought the fact of the applicant having approached the Hon’ble Apex Court against the Order of this Court and the said proceedings were pending to the knowledge of this Court and had filed an application seeking temporary bail and this Court had allowed the said application seeking temporary bail filed by the applicant and the applicant was ordered to be enlarged on temporary bail for a period of 5 days. The period of temporary bail granted to the applicant was extended by this Court on couple of occasions by period of 5 days each. The Hon’ble Apex Court had also observed that no notice had been issued to the Enforcement Directorate at the time of hearing of the application for temporary bail filed by the applicant. In fact, the applicant herein had categorically mentioned in his memo of application filed before this Court seeking temporary bail that the applicant had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court against the Order of this Court dismissing the regular bail application. The memo of the said application had also been served in advance to the learned Advocate appearing for the Government of India. Similarly, the memo of application seeking extension of temporary bail was also duly served in advance upon the learned Counsel of Union of India and the learned Counsel for Enforcement Directorate had also appeared before this Court on one occasion. The respondent – Enforcement Directorate in his affidavit filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court had made a false averment in the affidavit filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court that no notice was served upon Enforcement Directorate by this Court while considering the application filed by the applicant seeking temporary bail. It was only on these grounds that the Hon’ble Apex Court had dismissed the application filed by the present applicant before the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, liberty was granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court to the applicant to move the High Court afresh and thus, the applicant has filed the present application. He submitted that ECIR No.1 of 2019 was registered against the applicant on 30.09.2019. In the said ECIR, two offences being FIR Nos.03 of 2018 registered with CID Crime Surat Zone Police Station, Surat and FIR No. I-6 of 2018 registered with the same Police Station were cited as predicate offences against the present applicant for invocation of the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. He submitted that the applicant is not named as an accused in FIR No.6 of 2018. Thus, there is only one offence registered against the applicant which can be considered as a predicate offence. However, no charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant in the said offen