The grant of bail in cases related to money laundering and fraudulent activities should consider the criminal history, nature of allegations, and impose specific terms and conditions to prevent further criminal activities.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

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 7 of the bail petition, the accused declares the following criminal history:-

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
1	86	30.07.2013	City Phagwara, District Kapurthala	120-B & 420 IPC (Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC added later on)
2	61	13.05.2013	City Phagwara, District Kapurthala	420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC

[10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.

4. In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed, While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.

5. 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.

6. The Directorate of Enforcement's case, in nutshell is that the co-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