Anticipatory bail can be granted under the PMLA Act considering the applicants' age and lack of custodial requirement, despite the serious nature of economic offences.

Order on Board

1. The present first bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed in relation to Crime No.ECIR/01/NGR/2011 dated 10.01.2011 renumbered as ECIR/RPSZO/05/2013 and its subsequent addendum dated 10.02.2020, registered by Enforcement Directorate, Sub-Zonal Office-Nagpur for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘the PMLA Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Income Tax sleuths conducted a search at the premises of Babulal Agrawal on 04.02.2010, which resulted in the seizure of cash amount of Rs. 68.10 lakhs and jewellery worth Rs. 70.20 lakhs and other assets worth Rs. 12.50 crores. A search was also conducted at the premises of co-accused Sunil Kumar Agrawal, C.A. of Babulal Agrawal where 230 bank passbooks were recovered. It is further alleged that Sunil Kumar Agrawal opened a bank account in the name of the villagers by using documents given by the villagers and forging their signatures. The money deposited in such bank accounts was channelized as share capital in M/s. Prime Ispat Limited through shell companies.

3. The allegation against the present applicants, as per the prosecution complaint is that applicants are bank officials of Union Bank of India and with the help of applicants accounts were opened in the Union Bank of India favouring Babulal Agrawal; thus, in terms of Section 3 of the PMLA Act, 2002, the present applicants is knowingly a party in the process of Money Laundering and has made himself liable for punishment under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present applicants have falsely been implicated in this matter. He further submitted that during the investigation, applicants have never been arrested; and, the complaint case has already been filed. He further contended that on a similar subject matter, another ECIR has been registered, in which, anticipatory bail was granted by the Co- ordinate Bench in case No. MCRC(A) No. 1308 of 2021. Thereafter, co-accused Sangeeta Agrawal, Anand Agrawal, and Mamta Agrawal were granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA Nos. 1162 of 2023, 229/2024, and 1309 of 2023 on 04.10.2023, 08.05.2024 and 10.04.2024, respectively. He argued that according to the proviso appended to Section 45 of the PMLA Act, the applicants being old age and infirm, and thus are entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. He also argued that in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 43 held that in a case where the prosecution does not require custody of the accused, there is no need for arrest when a case is sent to the magistrate under Section 170 of the Code. It is also observed that there is no need for filing a bail application as the case is merely forwarded to the court for the framing of charges and issuance of process for trial.

5. He further argued that in the present case, the FIR was registered on 19.02.2010 and during these long 11 years, the applicants were never directed to appear before the investigating agency, therefore at this stage, it would not be appropriate to direct them to surrender. He also stated that in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorized the offences into four categories i.e. A, B, C & D. Category C deal