The judgment emphasizes the principles of bail, the need to establish a prima facie case, and the discretion to impose restrictive conditions while granting bail.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

Complaint No.	Dated	Pending in Court	Sections
ECIR/03/JLZO /2017	-	Special Court, CBI at SAS Nagar Mohali in case No.COMA/03/2021 in CRAPBSA01-007931-2021 dated 22.09.2021.	44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as defined u/s 3 R/w Section 70 and punishable u/s 4 of the PMLA Act 2002.

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail.

2. In paragraph 45 of the bail petition, the accused declares that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner.

3. Since the main accused-Vikram Kumar Seth was granted regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.03.2022 passed in CRM-M-35565-2021 and the said order was never assailed by the respondent before the Supreme Court, case of the petitioner is squarely covered on the grounds of parity, as such there would be no ground for rejecting the bail subject to complying with the conditions mentioned in this order.

4. The Directorate of Enforcement's case, in nutshell is that the accused Vikram Seth operated a few bogus entities in his name and also in the name of the family members, as mentioned in the complaint, which reads as follows: -

'(2). Brief summary of cause of action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The complainant submits that the condition precedent to investigate the offence of Money Laundering by the Complainant/ Directorate of Enforcement is either an FIR or a Police Report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. or a complaint, in respect of scheduled offences under the PMLA, 2002. The PMLA, 2002, is an act to prevent Money Laundering and to provide for confiscation of any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from, or involved in any process or activity connected to proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property. Since Sections 120-B, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, 1860, and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, invoked in the above mentioned FIRS are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PMLA), and whereas section 2 (1)(y) of PMLA provides "Schedule offence" means (1) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is thirty lakh rupees or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule, enquiries were initiated under PMLA against the accused persons after recording brief facts of scheduled offences in ECIR po. ECIR/03/JLZO/2017 dated 07.11.2017. A brief summary of the investigation culminating in the filing of this Prosecution Complaint is as follows:

(2.1). Sh.Vikram Seth had operated bogus entities viz. M/s B.L. Seth Steels Ltd., M/s B.L. Seth Coal Sales Pvt. Ltd., M/s V. S. Traders, M/s V. S. Enterprises, M/s P. K. Enterprises, M/s Goel Sales Corporation, M/s Subhash Singh & Co., M/s Unique Traders, M/s Quality Lime Product, M/s R. Sales Pvt. Ltd., M/s U.R. Enterprises and M/s M. K. Traders in the name of himself and his family members viz. Suresh Seth (his brother),

129 Sunita Seth (his wife), Anita Seth (his sister-in-law), Shivam Seth (his son), Veena Handa (his sister), Anand Prakash Handa (his brother-in law), Meenakshi Handa (his niece).

(2.2). Sh. Vikram Seth had availed 19 loans from Bank of Baroda, G.T. Road, Phagwara, fraudulently through criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and using forged documents as genuine in the names of business entities opened in his name and in the name of his family members including loans in individual capacity and defaulted on those loans resulting into wrongful loss of public money to the Bank of Baroda, Phagwara to the tune of Rs. 21.31 C