Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, J
Anil Tuteja S/o Late H.L.Tuteja – Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement Through Assistant Director E.D. Raipur Zonal Office Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) – Respondent
Order :
(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)
By way of present application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 45 of the PMLA on behalf of the applicant herein, is seeking grant of regular bail in ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 dated 11.04.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The applicant was arrested in pursuance of ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 of 2024 registered with Raipur Zone dated 11.04.2024 by the Directorate of Enforcement. The applicant has been involved in the same which involves laundering of proceeds of crime of more than 2000 crores approximately. As such the accused in involved in a grave and heinous financial crime.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. Facts of the case relevant for adjudication of the instant bail application are as follows:
The applicant is a retired officer of the Indian Administrative Services with a distinguished and unblemished service record. He retired as Joint Secretary in the Department of Commerce and Industry, Chhattisgarh in May 2023. The ECIR is a second ECIR and the first being ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 which was quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.04.2021 with a categorical finding that no schedul
The court emphasized that in economic offences, especially under the PMLA, bail should not be granted unless the accused demonstrates they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially in serious economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, where the gravity of charges necessitates stringent scrutiny.
The court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, due to the serious nature of the allegations and the evidence presented.
In economic offences, bail is not a right; the burden rests on the applicant to show no risk of interference with justice or likelihood of guilt, reinforced by the position of the accused.
The court emphasized that bail under the PMLA requires satisfaction of twin conditions regarding the accused's guilt and likelihood of committing further offences, which were not met in this case.
The court held that the seriousness of economic offences under the PMLA necessitates stringent bail conditions, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration does not automatically warrant bail if substan....
The court emphasized that bail is not a right in cases involving serious economic offences, particularly where substantial evidence of corruption exists.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; economic offences necessitate careful consideration due to their serious implications on public interest and the economy.
The court emphasized that bail is the exception, not the rule, particularly in serious economic offences, where the risk of tampering with evidence and flight is significant.
Bail is to be denied in economic offenses when serious, substantiated evidence of money laundering exists, per provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
