Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, where the scheduled offence investigation had not resulted in a charge sheet against him and the allegation rested mainly on an uncorroborated statement of a contractor.
Analysis: The applicant had cooperated with the investigation, had appeared before the Enforcement Directorate on several occasions, and had not been charge-sheeted by the CBI in the predicate offence. The material against him was confined to the statement of one contractor alleging payment of Rs. 15 lakh, but that statement was not put to the applicant during his examination and no independent corroboration or recovery was shown. The Court noted that the Enforcement Directorate had not conducted an independent investigation yielding additional incriminating material. In these circumstances, the Court found that the statutory considerations under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were satisfied and that custodial interrogation was not required.
Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the accused has cooperated with investigation, has not been charge-sheeted in the scheduled offence, and the prosecution lacks corroborated material beyond an untested allegation, anticipatory bail may be granted under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 despite the rigour of Section 45.