The court ruled that minor defects in a complaint do not entitle accused to statutory bail if the investigation is complete and there is sufficient evidence against them.

ORDER :

These Bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these cases by a common order.

2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in Crime No.ECIR/KZSZO/01/2023 of Enforcement Directorate, Kozhikode. The above case is registered alleging commission of offence of Money Laundering as defined under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'Act 2002'), which is punishable under Section 4 of Act 2002.

3. The prosecution case in brief is like this:

The accused in the above crime were the promoters of a company by name, 'Kannur Urban Nidhi Limited' (KUNL), which is offering 12 to 12.5% interest on fixed deposits. The company had accepted fixed deposits from several investors. According to the prosecution, the accused diverted those funds for the establishment and running of another company by name, 'Anytime Money Pvt. Ltd.' (ATM) and to the personal accounts of the petitioners and other accused. According to the prosecution, the accused embezzled around Rs.40 Crores by cheating the investors. So many cases are registered against the accused by the Crime Branch of Kannur and Kasaragod units. Hence, it is alleged that the accused also committed the offence under Section 4 of the Act, 2002. Hence, the present case is filed. The petitioners in B.A. No. 1032/2025 and B.A No. 741/2025 were arrested on 27.11.2024 and 29.11.2024, respectively.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate.

5. Adv. P. Sanjay, who appeared for the petitioner in B.A. No.741/2025 raised several contentions. The first and foremost contention raised by the counsel is that the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail because the investigation is not completed within the statutory period. Thereafter, Adv. Sanjay argued the matter on merit also. Adv. Sanjay submitted that there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner to implicate him in this case. It is the specific case of the petitioner in B.A. No.741/2025 that he was never a shareholder or director of KUNL. Counsel for the petitioner took me through Annexure-A9 produced in B.A. No.741/2025, which is the copy obtained from the Registrar of Companies, and submitted that Jaseena, Sabna and Muhammed are the Directors of the company. The counsel also took me through the relevant pages of Annexure-A9 and submitted that his client is not even a shareholder of the company. It is submitted that the shareholders of the company are Jameela, Subash, Gafoor, Abdulrazak, Jaseena, Sabna and Muhammed. According to the petitioner, he had some financial transactions with one Gafoor. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner entrusted some national permit lorries owned by him to the above-mentioned Gafoor, and certain amount was credited to the account of the petitioner by Gafoor. It is also submitted that Gafoor cheated the petitioner in B.A. No.741/2025 and Annexure-A2 is the complaint filed by the petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrissur. The counsel took me through the averments in the Annexure-A2 complaint. The counsel also takes me through Annexure-A11 to show that there is a payment to the account of the petitioner from the account of Gafoor. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above case is registered without any basis and materials. The counsel also submitted that the respondents are relying on the statement given under Section 50 of the Act 2002, which is inadmissible. Adv. Sanjay also submitted a note & compilation to support his contentions. He relied on Annexures-1 and 2 judgments produced along with the note & compilation to show that the statement under Section 50 cannot be relied on. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner has three minor daughters and a family consisting of aged parents. Therefore, he does not pose a flight risk. For that purpose, he rel