Point of Law: It is well settled that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by court while exercising its discretion.

ORDER :

Bail petitioner, namely Dr. Lakhwinder Singh, who is behind the bars since 26.9.2022, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of regular bail in case ECIR/SHSZO/02/2022, dated 20.06.2022, registered at Shimla, Sub Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement, under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act hereinafter PMLA.

2. Pursuant to notice issued to the instant proceedings in terms of order dated 17.10.2022, respondent-State/ Directorate of Enforcement has filed the status report and Mr. Aman Mor, Assistant Director of Enforcement has come present with record. Close scrutiny of status report/ record reveals that Himachal Pradesh Police registered FIR No. 252 of 2021 under Sections 379, 406, 34 IPC and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. After having completed investigation in the aforesaid FIR, police has filed challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C., against Vishal @ Vicky and 15 other persons for their having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 120-B, 379 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Petitioner herein was neither named in the FIR as detailed herein above nor was made accused in final report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the Court at Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. Besides above, police also shared information with regard to filing of aforesaid FIR No.252 of 2021 and registration of case under Section 120-B IPC with Directorate of Enforcement.

3. Having taken note of the fact that accused named in the aforesaid FIR were also charged with the offence punishable under Section 120-B, of IPC, which is a scheduled offence under PMLA, Directorate of Enforcement with a view to investigate the matter registered Enforcement Case Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'ECIR') as detailed herein above. During investigation of aforesaid ECIR, police conducted investigation against certain persons named in the FIR bearing No.252 of 2021 and during investigation found involvement of present bail petitioner, as such, while exercising powers under Section 17 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, raided his residential premises as well as business premises and allegedly recovered some incriminating documents suggestive the fact that petitioner has indulged in the offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA. On the basis of aforesaid material collected during raid, Enforcement Directorate exercising powers under Section 19 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, arrested bail petitioner on 26.09.2022 and within 24 hours of arrest of the petitioner, he was produced before the Special Judge at Dharamshala, who sent the bail petitioner to Enforcement Directorate custody for interrogation. However, after 14 days of arrest, he was sent to judicial custody and since then he is lodged in District Jail Bangarh, Una, H.P.

4. Since investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from him coupled with the fact that he is in judicial custody for over a month and his health is deteriorating the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of regular bail.

5. Shri Nareshwar Singh Chandel, learned Senior counsel duly assisted by Shri Sidharth Seth, Advocate, vehemently argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated and bare perusal of the material collected on record by Investigating Agency, nowhere suggests that the petitioner has committed offence, if any, punishable under the provisions of Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA. While inviting attention of this Court to FIR No. 252 of 2021 registered by police of H.P. under Section 379, 406, 34 IPC and under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Mr. Chandel, argued that the petitioner herein was never named in the FIR, which otherwise read in its entirety suggests that allegations agains