High Court Affirms Anticipatory Bail in Money Laundering Case

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of money laundering and possession of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Special Judge dismissed Mandeep Singh's application for anticipatory bail but granted interim bail for his appearance before the Investigating Officer. The Enforcement Directorate attached properties worth millions, and the court held that the rigour of the PMLA applies only upon arrest, confirming the interim anticipatory bail orders. Ultimately, all petitions were disposed of accordingly, with the interim orders being made absolute.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
2. Allegations of money laundering and possession of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Attachment of properties by the Enforcement Directorate.
4. Interim bail and compliance with investigation requirements.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 65 of the PMLA

[1]. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in Prosecution Complaint No. COMA/2/2018 dated 31.08.2018 under Section 45(1) of the PMLA.

[2]. The initial FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleged possession of disproportionate assets. The petitioners were granted bail in FIR No.12 dated 26.08.2015 under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC.

[5]. The trial court summoned the petitioners to face trial under Section 45(1) of the PMLA. Mandeep Singh's application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Special Judge.

[6]. Interim bail was granted to the petitioner-Mandeep Singh to enable his appearance before the Investigating Officer.

[7]-[8]. Similar interim orders were passed in CRM-M No.19330 of 2019 and CRM-M No.21330 of 2019.

Issue 2: Allegations of money laundering and possession of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

[3]. The FIR alleged money laundering under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, based on the disproportionate assets case.

[4]. The FIR was against Mandeep Singh, IAS, with allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets, and other accused/petitioners were implicated for connivance.

[9]. The investigation started on 18.02.2016, and the complaint was filed on 31.08.2018. The petitioners were summoned on 02.11.2018. They were not arrested during the investigation process.

[10]. Statements of petitioners were recorded during the investigation, and they were not arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA.

Issue 3: Attachment of properties by the Enforcement Directorate

[11]. The Enforcement Directorate attached 33 properties worth Rs. 2,62,46,148/-. Hotels Marc Royale-I and Marc Royale-II were also attached, with a combined distressed value of Rs. 70 crores.

[18]. The Directorate attached the petitioners' properties as per the valuation shown in the documents.

[19]. The petitioners were not arrested during the investigation, and their properties were provisionally attached.

[20]. The prosecution attached significant properties, including hotels, with a distressed value of about Rs. 70 crores.

Issue 4: Interim bail and compliance with investigation requirements

[12]. The petitioners complied with the interim bail conditions and furnished bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

[14]. The petitioners expressed readiness to join further investigation if required.

[15]. The respondent argued that the petitioners should surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail.

[16]. The court considered the submissions of both parties.

[17]. The court refrained from discussing the merits to avoid prejudicing the case.

[21]. The Division Bench of this Court in CRM-M No.28490 of 2018 held that the rigour of Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA applies only when an accused is arrested under Section 19 of the Act. This supports the petitioners' case for confirmation of interim anticipatory bail.

[22]. The interim orders dated 19.04.2019, 30.04.2019, and 10.05.2019 were made absolute.

[23]. All petitions were disposed of accordingly.

---