Judgment

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J. :-

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the case captioned above, on the violations of PMLA Act, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.

2. In paragraph 9 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Petitioner’s counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions. The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. The State opposes bail.

REASONING:

5. The allegations are that petitioner defrauded the bank to the tune of Rs.155.21 Crores. He signed the document of acceptance and payment of DP bills which reflects the unauthorised amended amount of LC. He also got forged /manipulated bills of entry submitted to the OBC against LCs. On 13.04.20203 counsel for the petitioner voluntarily offer surrender passport etc., it is appropriate to reproduce the order.

“Counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that petitioner would voluntarily surrender passport, fire arms and hand over on separate notarized affidavits, to the counsel representing CBI and ED before this Court, the complete details of bank account numbers with addresses, fixed deposits, DEMAT account numbers, the current market value of jewelry, sovereign metals, all precious articles, held either individually or jointly, and cash-in-hand.

Arguments heard.

Judgment reserved”.

6. As per paragraph 1 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 23.05.2022. Given the pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Furthermore, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a prima facie perusal of paragraph 2.2 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.

7. In Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , (2012) 1 SCC 40 , Supreme Court holds,

[28] We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.

8. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.

9. Without commenting on the case’s merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

10. In Mahid