Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, – Appellant
Versus
Ahmed A.R. Buhari – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 19147 of 2023 & Crl. M.P. No. 12883 of 2023
Decided On : 13-09-2023
PMLA Act - Bail Order - Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act, which impose twin conditions as restrictions for courts to consider while entertaining bail petitions involving crime proceeds of one crore and above. The court also referred to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a previous order, emphasizing the importance of cooperation with the investigation and the potential impact on ongoing investigations. The court highlighted the gravity of the offense and the extensive evidence against the accused, emphasizing the need to consider the reasonable restriction and the interest of the nation in balancing the fundamental right of personal liberty.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a NRI and Director of a company, was arrested for offenses under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA Act. The Enforcement Directorate alleged that over 564 crores of rupees were laundered, and the accused was involved in siphoning Indian money to a foreign country. The trial court granted bail to the accused, prompting the Enforcement Directorate to file a petition to set aside the bail order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in passing a docket order without a detailed explanation and subsequently granting bail without providing reasons for satisfaction of the twin conditions imposed under Section 45 of the PMLA Act. The court emphasized the gravity of the offense, the extensive evidence against the accused, and the need to balance the fundamental right of personal liberty with the reasonable restriction and the interest of the nation.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the grant of bail to the accused despite the gravity of the offense, the extensive evidence against the accused, and the twin conditions imposed under Section 45 of the PMLA Act. The court also addressed the delay in completing the investigation by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate's steps to proceed with its investigation in respect of offshore entities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the gravity of the offense, the extensive evidence against the accused, and the need to balance the fundamental right of personal liberty with the reasonable restriction and the interest of the nation. The court emphasized the importance of cooperation with the investigation and the potential impact on ongoing investigations.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate was allowed, and the order of the trial court granting bail to the respondent was set aside.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 16.08.2023 granting bail to the accused in Crl.M.P. No.6628 of 2023 in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2022 by the learned XIII CBI Court, (Spl. Court for PMLA Cases), Chennai.)
1. Shri.Ahmed A.R.Buhari, the respondent herein was arrested on 04.03.2022, pursuant to registration of the case against him under Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to “PMLA Act”) in F.No.ECIR/CEZO/I/01/2018 which was on the file of Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai Zone-I, Chennai. On completion of investigation, the Enforcement Directorate had filed final report and the same was taken on file by the Special Court for CBI cases, Chennai in Spl.C.C.No.01 of 2022 after being transferred from the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai. Before the trial Court, the petitioner sought for grant of bail in Crl.MP. No.6628 of 2023 and same was allowed on 16.08.2023. The docket order uploaded in the Court website read as below:-
“1.The petitioner/Accused (A1) required to surrender/deposit his passport before this court custody until further orders.
2. Petitioner/Accused (A1) enlarged on bail, on his execution of bond for Rs.1 lakh and two such sureties for the like sum each and the sureties shall be his blood relatives and sureties required to produce sufficient solvency certificates.
3. The petitioner/Accused (A1) on his enlargement on bail, shall appear before this Court on all working days and to sign before this Court daily at 10.00 AM until further orders without fail.
4. The petitioner shall not leave the Chennai City limit until further orders.
5. The petitioner required to make his appearance regularly for future hearings of this case and required to extend his fullest cooperation for the early disposal of this case.
6. The petitioner shall be made available for interrogation by the respondent as and when required, without fail. The petitioner required not to indulge in any activities of tampering of witnesses, records and evidences.”
2. The Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, on 17.08.2023 moved to this Court to set aside the order granting bail. This Court called for the records through the Vigilance Cell of High Court, after perusing the records and being satisfied that, the learned trial Judge has not made detailed order while granting bail, this Court granted stay of the bail and passed the following order.
“7. On the face of the order which is impugned in this application to set aside the bail granted to the accused, it is obviously seen that there is no discussion in respect of pleadings and the embargo under Section 45 of the PMLA Act, the Act under which the accused now been prosecuted.
8. Furthermore, when the prosecution has filed petition to reopen the case for clarification, ignoring the said petition, the trial Court has hurriedly passed the non-speaking order granting bail. The copy of the order was not made available to the prosecution for reasons best known and the Counsel has made an endorsement in the application for dispensing with the production of the original order copy, with specific statement that, attempt made on to peruse the bail order did not fructify. The Staff in the Special Court has informed him that the order is under preparation.
9. As stated earlier, case records seized by the Registrar (Vigilance) also does not contain a detailed order except the docket order which is signed by the Presiding Officer which is extracted above for easy reference. In that order, there is no indication that there is a detailed order dictated/pronounced and signed in the Open Court. This clearly indicates that when the docket order signed by the Presiding Officer, there was no detailed order.
10. For the said reason, the or
The court emphasized the importance of cooperation with the investigation, the gravity of the offense, and the need to balance the fundamental right of personal liberty with the reasonable restrictio....
The gravity of the alleged offences, the petitioner's non-cooperation, and the potential flight risk outweighed any entitlement to bail.
The main legal point established is the constitutional validity of Section 45(1) of the PML Act and the principle of granting bail in economic offences when the investigation is complete and the tria....
Economic offences like money laundering under the PMLA warrant severe scrutiny for bail, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial while recognizing the gravity of the allegations and prolonged detenti....
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.
The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial and liberty, allowing bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after 15 months of custody, citing no likelihood of trial commencement.
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as there were no reasonable grounds for believing that she had committed an off....
Bail – Delay and long detention in custody cannot be a ground for grant of bail in cases of money laundering.
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
