TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court grants bail under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002</h1> <h3>Om Prakash Nogaja Versus K. Nageshwar Rao, The State of Maharashtra</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the bail applications of the Managing Director and Chartered Accountant/Professional Director of a company charged under the ... - Issues Involved:1. Bail applications u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. 1973.2. Offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.3. Contradictory satisfaction under section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.4. Conditions for bail.Summary:1. Bail Applications u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. 1973:Both applicants, the Managing Director of M/s. OPM International Private Limited and a Chartered Accountant/Professional Director of the same company, filed separate bail applications u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. 1973. They are charged with offences under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.2. Offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002:The proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were preceded by an N.D.P.S. Special Case. The applicants were initially granted bail by the Special Court under the N.D.P.S. Act, but the High Court kept the bail order in abeyance. The Supreme Court later directed the applicants to be enlarged on bail with certain conditions.3. Contradictory Satisfaction under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act:The Special Court recorded satisfaction under section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act that the applicants are not guilty of the offences and are unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. However, the applications for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were rejected by recording a contrary satisfaction under section 45, stating there are no reasonable grounds for believing the applicants are not guilty of the offences.4. Conditions for Bail:The court examined the scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and concluded that the penal provisions get attracted only upon conviction for a scheduled offence. The court found it illogical to secure a conviction under section 3 of the Act if the person is acquitted of the scheduled offence. The court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Ranjitsingh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that restrictions on granting bail should not be pushed too far.Final Order:The applications were allowed, and the applicants were granted bail on the following conditions:- Execution of bail bonds in a sum of Rs. 2 Lac each with one or two solvent sureties.- Attendance at the office of Respondent No.1 once a week until the trial's completion.- Passports to remain with the Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau.- Applicants not to leave Mumbai without prior court permission.- Initial permission to deposit cash in lieu of surety for four weeks.The applications were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
