Anticipatory bail granted in money laundering case with strict conditions

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in connection with a money laundering case, considering the seriousness of economic offences and the Petitioner's cooperation in the investigation. The Court imposed specific conditions for bail, including a bond amount and restrictions on inducements, witness influence, travel, and appearance before authorities. The anticipatory bail application was disposed of, and the Petitioner was directed to comply with the set conditions upon arrest or surrender.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Petitioner's apprehension of arrest and detention.
2. Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Allegations against the Petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
4. Application of Section 45 of the PMLA and its conditions for bail.
5. Constitutional validity of Section 45 of the PMLA post-amendment.
6. Consideration of economic offences in granting bail.
7. Judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Petitioner's Apprehension of Arrest and Detention:
The Petitioner filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with CMC (PMLA) Case No.34 of 2016, fearing arrest and detention.

2. Application for Anticipatory Bail:
The Petitioner’s counsel argued for bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case, while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed it, citing Section 45 of the PMLA.

3. Allegations Against the Petitioner:
The Petitioner was involved in the Artha Tatwa Group of Companies, which allegedly collected funds from investors through deceitful schemes and misappropriated the money. The Petitioner was accused of making personal financial gains and acquiring properties with the diverted funds.

4. Application of Section 45 of the PMLA and Its Conditions for Bail:
Section 45 of the PMLA imposes two conditions for bail: (i) the prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application, and (ii) the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

5. Constitutional Validity of Section 45 of the PMLA Post-Amendment:
The Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India declared Clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Following this, amendments were made to Section 45(1), replacing the words "punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule" with "under this Act." However, the Court observed that the amendment did not revive the twin conditions for bail, which were declared ultra vires.

6. Consideration of Economic Offences in Granting Bail:
Economic offences, involving deep-rooted conspiracies and significant public fund losses, are considered grave and require a different approach in bail matters. The Court referred to precedents, including Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and Rohit Tandon v. CBI, emphasizing the seriousness of economic offences.

7. Judicial Discretion in Granting Anticipatory Bail:
The Court highlighted that the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and must be exercised with caution. It considered various factors, including the Petitioner’s cooperation during the investigation, lack of evidence tampering, and compliance with bail conditions in related cases.

Conclusion:
The Court directed that in the event of the Petitioner's arrest or surrender, he shall be released on bail with specific conditions: furnishing a bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two solvent sureties, not making any inducements or threats, not influencing witnesses, not leaving the country without permission, and presenting himself before ED/Court when required.

The ABLAPL was accordingly disposed of, and an urgent certified copy was issued as per rules.

---