Anticipatory bail granted in money laundering case; court finds no need for custody post-investigation due to cooperation.

The HC granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners involved in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court found the petitioners' cooperation during the investigation and the submission of the charge sheet persuasive, determining that custody was unnecessary. The court emphasized the principles of anticipatory bail in economic offenses, noting the lack of need for arrest post-investigation. The petitioners were directed to be released upon furnishing a bail bond and sureties.

---

---

Issues:
1. Anticipatory bail applications in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Allegations of diversion of bank funds into real estate business, resulting in non-performing assets.
3. Involvement of multiple petitioners in raising loans from banks and diverting funds.
4. Legal arguments regarding the necessity of custody and the principles of anticipatory bail in economic offenses.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Anticipatory Bail Applications
The judgment deals with two anticipatory bail applications arising from a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioners sought bail apprehending arrest in connection with the case.

Issue 2: Diversion of Bank Funds
The prosecution alleged that the petitioners floated companies to obtain bank loans, which were then diverted into the real estate business. This diversion led to the loans becoming non-performing assets, resulting in the institution of the case.

Issue 3: Multiple Petitioners' Involvement
The judgment outlined the involvement of various petitioners in raising loans from banks and diverting the funds. The modus operandi involved incorporating companies to secure bank loans, which were subsequently diverted for purposes other than those stated during loan acquisition.

Issue 4: Legal Arguments on Anticipatory Bail
The defense argued that the petitioners were not arrested during the investigation, had cooperated, and the charge sheet had been submitted. Citing legal precedents, the defense contended that arrest was not necessary post-investigation, especially in cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The court considered these arguments persuasive and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

The court allowed the anticipatory bail applications, directing the petitioners to be released on furnishing a bail bond and sureties. The court emphasized the cooperation of the accused during the investigation and the submission of the charge sheet as factors supporting the grant of anticipatory bail. The judgment highlighted legal principles regarding the sparing exercise of anticipatory bail in economic offenses and the lack of necessity for custody when the accused had not been apprehended post-investigation.

---