Court denies anticipatory bail in cheating, forgery, and corruption case; stresses thorough investigation.

The court rejected the applicant's plea for anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of cheating, forgery, extortion, criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and money laundering under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act. The court emphasized the need for thorough investigation by the Enforcement Directorate due to the seriousness of the charges, leading to the denial of anticipatory bail despite the applicant's arguments regarding breach of contract and the nature of the offenses.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for anticipatory bail.
2. Allegations of cheating, forgery, and extortion.
3. Allegations of criminal misconduct u/s 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. Allegations of money laundering u/s 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
5. Constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
6. Application of Section 45 of the PML Act regarding bail.
7. Considerations for granting anticipatory bail.

Summary:

1. Application for anticipatory bail:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement in F. No. ECIR/03/MZ0/2011. The application was entertained on 17-9-2012, and interim orders were passed.

2. Allegations of cheating, forgery, and extortion:
The applicant, a former Deputy Collector and Personal Secretary to the Housing Minister, was involved in a redevelopment project where he allegedly did not pay the agreed commission to Waghela and Pandurang Thakur. They filed a report against the applicant for cheating, forgery, and extortion, leading to his arrest and subsequent bail. The applicant contended that the case was a breach of contract rather than a criminal offense.

3. Allegations of criminal misconduct u/s 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
An offense of criminal misconduct was registered against the applicant and his family for amassing properties worth Rs. 118.39 crores beyond his legal remuneration. The Enforcement Directorate registered cases alleging money laundering of properties received as proceeds of crimes.

4. Allegations of money laundering u/s 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002:
The Enforcement Directorate alleged that the applicant amassed properties worth over Rs. 100 crores. Properties worth Rs. 6.93 crores were attached, and the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment. The applicant argued that the allegations of money laundering were not justified as the proceeds of crime were not established.

5. Constitutional protection against double jeopardy:
The applicant argued that he should not be subjected to a second arrest for the same offense under the protection against double jeopardy. The court held that prosecution for cheating, forgery, and extortion is independent of prosecution under the PML Act, rejecting the applicant's contention.

6. Application of Section 45 of the PML Act regarding bail:
The applicant argued that Section 45 of the PML Act does not prohibit bail as the offense was under Part-B of the Schedule. The court, however, noted that money laundering is a continuing offense, and the amendments to the Act do not amount to retrospective criminalization.

7. Considerations for granting anticipatory bail:
The court considered various judgments and concluded that anticipatory bail should be granted in exceptional circumstances. The court found that the applicant's involvement in amassing wealth and the need for thorough investigation by the Enforcement Directorate outweighed the applicant's plea for pre-arrest bail. The application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

---