The court established the statutory right of the enforcement agency to conduct further investigation and file subsequent complaints without seeking prior permission, as empowered by the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner Himanshu through an instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailed the action of respondent-Directorate of Enforcement, whereby, the petitioner was arrested under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’) and further remanded to custody vide order dated 15.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No.3, Jaipur Metro-I, Jaipur.

2. The petitioner prayed for setting aside his arrest Annexure-P/13) under Section 19 of the PMLA and further remand order dated 25.10.2022 (Annexure-P/15) passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 3 Jaipur Metro-I, Jaipur.

3. In para 3 of the petition, the petitioner illustrates his enterprise profile.

4. In para 4 of the petition, the petitioner describes his association with one Bharat Bomb and Deepak Parihar in the business of Green Cement Technology in terms of the agreement dated 26.03.2014, and further joint venture through agreement dated 26.03.2014 with them. The petition also annotates the transactions received from Bharat Bomb and their companies at particular intervals. The petition likewise catalogues its various pacts with other companies in a joint venture. It also alleges fraud perpetrated by Bharat Bomb Deepak Parihar and its associated companies and so also about the FIR instituted against Bharat Bomb Deepak Parihar under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The para also gives an account of the FIR registered by CBI Banking Security and Fraud Cell against the officials of Syndicate Banks at Jaipur and the fraud committed by Bharat Bomb in complicity with other individuals in that matter. Para 4 of the petition, conveys the charge sheet filed in the above matter before the concerned designated CBI Court at Jaipur. The petition further mentions that on 11.07.2016 the respondent registered ECIR JPZO/01/2016 and commenced its investigation and the petitioner received a Notice u/s 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 where it transpired that Deepak Parihar and Bharat Bomb in connivance had opened fake accounts using a fictitious entity of the petitioner. The petitioner further pleads that properties purchased by Bharat Bomb were provisionally attached by the ED and the provisional attachment has attained conformity vide order dated 01.06.2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA). Eviction notices to the attached properties were issued to the petitioner and the petitioner denied his involvement.

5. The petitioner also narrates that another FIR bearing No.RCBD1/2017/E/001 got registered by CBI under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC and Section 13(2) of the PC Act related to Syndicate Bank. The petitioner alleges that the respondent illegally proceeded to attach his properties, whereas, he has no involvement in the fraud committed to the Syndicate Bank. In para 4.14 of the petition, a litany of the petitioner's properties attached under Section 5 of PMLA gets cited and the petitioner also alleges the said attachment is illegal. It also narrates the legal recourse adopted by the petitioner against his attached properties. The petitioner further states that the ED recorded his statement under Section 50 of PMLA.

6. The petition also says that respondent ED filed a complaint arraigning the petitioner as accused along with the other 12 accused specifically alleging connivance with Bharat Bomb in layering and integrating proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 58.72 Cr., purchasing immovable assets illicitly syphoning the money to a business, transferring the ownership of the properties for escaping the proceedings under PMLA.

7. The petitioner further questions his arrest on the grounds of violating the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA and Sections 57, 41 and 167 of Cr.P.C. while referring to the law laid down in D. K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal : AIR 1977 SC 610 and Ashok Munilal Jain vs. Directorate of Enforcement