IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
Boodati Laxminarayana - Appellant
Vs.
The Directorate of Enforcement - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2530 of 2025
Decided On : 16-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal petition for bail filed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments by defense regarding statutory bail. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. prosecution's claims on fraud and ongoing investigation. (Para 5) |
| 4. investigation timeline and statutory bail provisions discussed. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 5. judicial emphasis on timely investigation and rights. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 6. provisions of pmla regarding investigation and bail. (Para 14 , 20 , 22) |
| 7. court denies bail and dismisses petition. (Para 25 , 26) |
ORDER :
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ) by the petitioner seeking bail in ECIR/HYZO/42/2022 on the file of the Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad.
2. The instant case originates from Crime No.158 of 2022 registered on 01.08.2022 at the Central Crime Station Police Station, Hyderabad, against M/s. Sahiti Infratech Venture India Private Limited, its Managing Director i.e., the petitioner herein, and others, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1960 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘IPC’). The said crime was instituted basing on a complaint lodged by Mr. M. Yashwanth Kumar, who purported to be a home buyer. Subsequent to the registration of crime, the provisions of Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 3 and 5 of the TELANGANA PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS OF FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT , 1999 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘TPDFE Act’) were incorporated into the case. The petitioner made as accused No.1 in the aforementioned crime.
3. Heard Sri D.V Seetharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Pratheek Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri D. Narender Naik, learned Standing Counsel for Directorate of Enforcement appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that basing on the complaint lodged by one M. Yashwanth Kumar, Crime No.158 of 2022 was registered by the Central Crime Station, Detective Department, Hyderabad, against M/s. Sahiti Infratec Ventures India Private Limited (for short, ‘the Company’), Managing Director of the Company i.e., petitioner herein and others, for the offences under Sections 4 06 and 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘IPC’) and subsequently, Sections 120-B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the TPDFE Act were added. Thereafter, on 11.08.2022, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘PMLA’), an Enforcement Case Information Report was registered, vide ECIR/HYZO/42/2022 for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA against the Company, petitioner and others. On 12.08.2022, the Police, Central Crime Station, D.D., Hyderabad, conducted a search and seized all the documents pertaining to the details of the projects undertaken by the Company. Basing on the other similar complaints made in the various police stations, First Information Reports were filed against the Company, the petitioner and others. The respondent issued summons to the petitioner and his statements were recorded on 31.10.2022, 01.11.2022 and 02.11.2022. The petitioner was arrested by the Police of Central Crime Station, D.D., Hyderabad, in respect of Crime No.158 of 2022 on 01.12.2022 and he was in judicial custody till 31.01.2023. Thereafter, on 01.04.2023, the respondent conducted another search in the Company office as well as the residence of certain persons under Section 17 (1A) of the PMLA and seized the material and also collected the documents pertaining to the case from the Central Crime Station, D.D., Hyderabad. The respondent also seized the bank accounts belonging to the Company, the petitioner and also other directors of the Company. On 20.12.2023, the provisional attachment was issued under Section 5 of the PMLA attaching movable and immovable properties worth of Rs.161.50 Crores belongs to the Company, the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner was arrested on 29.09.2024 in connection
C. Parthasarthy v. Director of Enforcement
V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement
Accused in money laundering must meet stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, reflecting the severity of the offense and impact on ongoing investigations.
Prolonged incarceration before trial infringes on the right to speedy trial, necessitating bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act if trial delays are significant.
The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial and liberty, allowing bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after 15 months of custody, citing no likelihood of trial commencement.
The right to personal liberty under Article 21 prevails over prolonged pre-trial incarceration, with bail granted subject to stringent conditions.
The court emphasized the importance of cooperation with the investigation, the gravity of the offense, and the need to balance the fundamental right of personal liberty with the reasonable restrictio....
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution prevails, allowing bail under Section 436A of the CrPC despite statutory restrictions in the PMLA.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, and prolonged incarceration without trial infringes on this right, warranting bail despite serious allegations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.