THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

CRL.MC NO. 10380 OF 2025

Dated this the 10th day of September , 2026

ORDER

The respondent is the accused in S.C cases (PMLA)No.4/2024 on the file of the Special Court for PMLA cases, Ernakulam, (‘Special Court’, in short), which has arisen from Crime No.ECIR/KC20/07/2024 registered by the Enforcement Directorate, Kochi, alleging the commission of the offences under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (‘the Act’, in short).

2. It is the petitioner’s case that, the Special Court has enlarged the respondent on bail, as per the impugned Annexure A1 order, without considering the rigour contemplated under Section 45 of the Act. Instead, the Special Court has enlarged the respondent on the sole ground that the respondent has been in judicial custody for the last 15 months. The petitioner is an accused in 15 crimes registered by the various Police Stations for allegedly committing the offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act. The petitioner has been convicted in three cases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in a string of decisions held that an accused who has committed the offence under the Act shall be enlarged on bail only on diluting the rigour under Section 45 of the Act. It is without considering the above question that the Special Court has enlarged the respondent on bail. The impugned order is ex-facie erroneous, irrational and improper. Hence, the impugned order may be set aside.

3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, refuting the allegations in this petition. The respondent has contended that the Special Court has enlarged him on bail by exercising its discretion, that too, due to the change of circumstances. The respondent has been scrupulously complying with all the conditions that have been imposed in the bail order. There is no error or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, this petition may be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of Indian Through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad [2025 KHC OnLine 6145], Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2024 (2) KLD 271], Senthil Balaji V v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement [2024 (2) KLD 661], in support of this contentions.

6. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, the accused persons had offered high return on investments and received Rs. 25,00,000/- from the defacto complainants. But, the accused refused to pay any return or repay the investment, and thus, cheated the defacto complainants.

7. In the above context, it is apposite to refer to Section 45 of the Act, which reads thus;

“Section 45 Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable (1)1[Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)*, no person accused of an offence 4[under this Act] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--]

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release;and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail:Provided that a person who is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, 5[or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money- laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees] may be released on bail, if the special court so directs: Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 4 except upon a c