Petitioners granted bail in Money Laundering Act case despite prosecution's objections.

The court granted bail to the petitioners in a case involving offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Despite arguments from the Additional Solicitor General regarding the seriousness of the offence, likelihood of evidence tampering, and influencing witnesses, the court found that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The court noted the petitioners' cooperation during the investigation, lack of misuse of seized amounts, and ongoing joint trial. Emphasizing the lack of evidence of tampering or influencing witnesses, the court allowed the bail applications, directing the petitioners to regular bail subject to trial court satisfaction.

---

---

Issues:
1. Bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioners in judicial custody for offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Impact of Coronavirus outbreak on court proceedings.
3. Consideration of bail application based on seriousness of the offence, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The bail applications were filed by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. as they were in judicial custody in connection with Session Case No.1/2019 for offences under Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioners had been previously enlarged on bail in Scheduled Offences by the Coordinate Bench of the Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur. The Enforcement Department had filed a complaint under the PML Act, and the Designated Court had taken cognizance and issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioners and other co-accused persons. The petitioners challenged the orders before the Supreme Court, which granted protection from arrest for a limited period. The petitioners surrendered and filed bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which were dismissed by the Designated PML Act Court, leading to the filing of the present bail applications.

Issue 2:
Due to the outbreak of Coronavirus, lawyers were not appearing in court. However, the court heard the counsels for the parties through video calling and perused the record to ensure the proceedings continued despite the challenging circumstances caused by the pandemic.

Issue 3:
The court considered various arguments presented by both parties. The petitioners' counsels highlighted that the petitioners had cooperated during the Enforcement Department's enquiry for over 2.5 years, were not arrested despite the department's powers to do so, and had not misused the seized amount. They also emphasized that the trial for both cases was ongoing jointly. The counsels relied on relevant judgments to support their arguments. On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General argued that the present offence was more serious, with a likelihood of evidence tampering and influencing witnesses. The ASG cited judgments to support the contention that the petitioners were not entitled to bail due to the nature of the economic offence and the confirmed cognizance orders.

The court, after considering the arguments and judgments cited, found that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The court noted that the petitioners had pursued legal remedies during the period they did not appear before the trial court, and there was no evidence of tampering or influencing witnesses. The court emphasized that keeping the petitioners in custody would not serve any useful purpose, especially since they had been granted bail in the scheduled offences. Therefore, the court allowed the bail applications, admitting the petitioners to regular bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial court and directed the office to send a copy of the order to the concerned trial court for compliance.

---