Court denies anticipatory bail in money laundering case due to evasion of investigation. Petitioner advised to seek regular bail.

The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a money laundering case involving forged documents and tax evasion. This was the petitioner's 3rd attempt for bail, citing changed circumstances, but the court noted the petitioner's evasion of investigation and non-cooperation as key reasons for denial. The court highlighted the petitioner's deliberate avoidance of appearing for investigation despite multiple summons, distinguishing the case from co-accused individuals. The petitioner was advised to seek regular bail, and the anticipatory bail petition was dismissed without reflecting an opinion on the case's merits.

---

---

Issues:
1. Anticipatory bail application in a money laundering case involving forged documents and tax evasion.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. This was the petitioner's 3rd attempt for anticipatory bail, with previous attempts being declined by the court. The petitioner cited changed circumstances for the new application, referring to similar cases where bail was granted to co-accused individuals. The petitioner was accused of involvement in a VAT refund scam through forged documents and fake transactions to cheat the state exchequer.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and others engaged in paper transactions and fake documentation to defraud the government. The firm in question claimed a VAT refund of Rs. 1.56 crores based on forged documents, with the amount being transferred to different accounts. The petitioner was one of the beneficiaries of this fraudulent activity. Despite being summoned multiple times for investigation and videography of proceedings, the petitioner intentionally avoided appearing, leading to the denial of bail in previous attempts.

The court noted that the petitioner's conduct of evading investigation and non-cooperation was a significant factor in denying anticipatory bail. The court differentiated the petitioner's case from that of a co-accused, emphasizing the petitioner's deliberate avoidance of investigation despite repeated summons. The court concluded that due to the petitioner's conduct and involvement in the scam, anticipatory bail could not be granted. The petitioner was advised to seek regular bail in accordance with the law, and the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed. The judgment clarified that the decision did not reflect an opinion on the merits of the case.

---