Anticipatory bail under Section 438 cannot shield an accused from custodial detention ordered by the court post-summons, distinguishing between police arrest and court-directed custody.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail as per section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Complaint Case (PMLA) No. 60 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (C.B.I.-I)-cum-Special Court under the PMLA Act, Bhubaneswar.

2. It appears from the record that 23 FIRs were registered in various Police Stations under Bhubaneswar- Cuttack Commissionerate against several persons including the petitioner alleging commission of various crimes such as, abduction, murder, criminal conspiracy, crimination intimidation, extortion, tender fixing, possession of illegal arms and ammunitions, counterfeit currencies and forgery etc. The present petitioner has been charge sheeted under Sections 387/120-B/34 of IPC read with Section 25/27 of Arms Act in Chauliaganj P.S. Case No. 27 of 2016 and under Sections 25(1-B)/25(1-A)A of Arms Act in Badambadi P.S. Case No. 80 of 2016. Such offences being scheduled offences as per the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, an ECIR being ECIR/02/BBSR/2016 dated 03.06.2016 was registered and upon completion of preliminary enquiry, a complaint being Complaint Case (PMLA) No.60 of 2018 has been filed in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (C.B.I.-I)-cum-Special Court under the PML Act, Bhubaneswar. The allegation as against the petitioner as culled out from the FIRs registered in connection with the aforementioned two cases are that he had invested in several immovable properties in his name as well as his wife’s name amounting to Rs.71 Lakhs at different places, even though his total income is Rs.16 Lakhs from a grocery shop. It was found during enquiry/investigation that he had generated huge proceeds of crime by extortion, tender fixing, possession and running illegal trade of arms and ammunitions etc. Further, he was fixing tender for balighats (sand quarries) on behalf of Dhalasamant brothers (co-accused persons). In course of investigation, the petitioner’s statement was recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act. He fully cooperated in the investigation and as such, there was no move by the investigating agency to arrest him at any point of time. After filing of the complaint, the Court below issued summons for his appearance. The petitioner appeared through his lawyer and moved an application for dispensation of his personal attendance in the Court, which came to be rejected by order dated 17.07.2023. Thus, apprehending that he may be taken to custody on his appearance, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present application.

3. Heard Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate.

4. Mr. Panda would argue that the complaint petition does not reveal any direct allegation or evidence of money laundering against the petitioner. The investigating agency has taken into account immovable assets standing in the name of the petitioner’s wife but has not shown as to how they are related to the petitioner or can be classified as proceeds of crime. The other evidence purportedly collected by the investigating agency from banks, IGR, revenue authorities, Income Tax authorities, etc. do not reveal a prima facie case against the petitioner at all. The only evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the petitioner’s own statement recorded during investigation. Further, the documents relied upon by the investigating agency are relatable to the co-accused persons, particularly to the Dhalasamant brothers but not to the petitioner. The witnesses cited by the investigating agency in the complaint are not in any manner relatable to any