Point of Law: Offence of money-laundering - Anticipatory bail rejected - Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, Court must record reasons therefore - Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where Court is prima facie of view that applicant has falsely been enroped in crime and would not misuse his liberty

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in ECIR No.01/PMLA/LZO/2012 dated 14.04.2012 (Complaint No.115 of 2018), under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundring Act, 2002, Enforcement Agency E.D., District Lucknow.

2. Shri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Amit Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the erstwhile sleeping Director of M/s Surgicoin Medequip Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'company'). The respondent lodged the instant Enforcement Case Information Report (for short 'ECIR') against all the persons named in F.I.R. No. RC-1(A)/2012-CBI/SC.II/ New Delhi Dated 02.01.2012. The applicant was never named in the predicate offence and no first information report was lodged against him. He has also submitted that the applicant was also not named in the ECIR and no role whatsoever has been assigned in the ECIR.

3. Shri Singh has submitted that the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 15.11.2011 passed in W.P. No.3611/2011 (PIL), W.P. No.3301/2011 (PIL) and W.P. No.2647/2011 (PIL) directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI') to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry in the matter of execution and implementation of National Rural Health Mission (for short 'NRHM') and utilization of funds at various levels during such implementation in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh and also directed to register regular cases in respect of the persons against whom prima facie cognizable offence is made out in accordance with law.

4. It is submitted that in pursuance to the aforementioned orders of the Court, five separate preliminary enquiries were registered in different branches of CBI. Preliminary Enquiry No.5(A)/2011/SC.II/CBI/New Delhi was registered on 19.11.2011 in respect of alleged irregularities in the utilization of funds of Government of India. On 02.01.2012, a first information report being R.C. No.1(A)/2012-C.B.I./SC II/New Delhi was registered by CBI under Sections 120-B r/w Sections 420, 409 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against several persons. Further, Directorate of Enforcement lodged Enforcement Case Information Report No.ECIR/01/PMLA/LZO/2012 dated 14.04.2012 against all the persons named in FIR No.RC-1(A)/2012-CBI/SC.II/New Delhi. Thereafter, Directorate of Enforcement passed order of Provisional Attachment dated 05.04.2017 and provisionally attached two of the properties.

5. It is further submitted that Directorate of Enforcement preferred Original Complaint on 11.05.2017 under Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short "PMLA") being OC No. 773 of 2017 before learned Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, New Delhi seeking confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order No. 03 of 2017 dated 05.04.2017 which vide judgment and order dated 13.09.2017 confirmed the order of Provisional Attachment. Thereafter, Directorate of Enforcement filed Complaint under Section 45 of PMLA against M/S Surgicoin Mediquip Pvt. Ltd., Naresh Grover, Pankaj Grover, Abhay Kumar Bajpai.

6. Shri Singh has submitted that Directorate of Enforcement misled the learned Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow and only disclosed the confirmation of Attachment order by the Adjudicating Authority dated 13.09.2017. The complainant has chosen not to disclose before the Court the part setting aside of order dated 13.09.2017 passed by learned Appellate Authority, PMLA, New Delhi in Appeal No.FPA-PMLA-2058/LKW/2017 being preferred by Bajaj Finance Ltd. vide its judgment and order dated 28.06.2018.

7. It is submitted that learned Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow vide its order dated 23.10.2018 on the basis of misrepresentation being made by the complainant took cognizance of Complaint No.115 of 2018 and passed summoning order against the applicant alongwith others. It is further submitted that learned Special Judge, PMLA issued bailable