Court grants bail under Prevention of Money Laundering Act despite fraud allegations.

The Court granted bail to the applicant in Case No. 112 of 2018 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Despite allegations of involvement in a significant fraud, the Court considered the lack of material evidence, the applicant's cooperation in investigations, and the absence of an arrest or a Provisional Attachment Order. Emphasizing the delayed filing of the complaint and the seriousness of the charges, bail was allowed with stringent conditions to prevent misuse, directing the trial court to proceed expeditiously.

---

---

Issues:
Bail application under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Bail Application under PMLA, 2002
The bail application was filed in Case No.112 of 2018 under Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The applicant claimed innocence, stating false implication and lack of criminal history. The applicant participated in the trial of the predicate offence and cooperated in the investigations conducted by the Enforcement Directorate. The applicant's counsel argued that no material supported the allegations, emphasizing the absence of a Provisional Attachment Order. Citing Supreme Court cases, the applicant sought bail, asserting no misuse of liberty if granted.

Issue 2: Prosecution's Opposition
The Directorate of Enforcement opposed bail, alleging the applicant's involvement in a fraud amounting to Rs. 1,59,91,156. The fraud was related to cheques encashed from a LIC account. The Directorate highlighted the applicant's role in the alleged crime, contending that the burden of proof lay on the applicant. While acknowledging the applicant's cooperation during investigation, the Directorate emphasized the seriousness of the charges and the need for trial evidence.

Judgment
After considering submissions and records, the Court noted the applicant's cooperation in the scheduled offence investigation and subsequent ECIR registration by the Enforcement Directorate. Notably, the applicant was not arrested or issued a Provisional Attachment Order. The complaint under PMLA was filed after eight years, primarily based on statements without witness corroboration. Given the applicant's custody since 2020 and the maximum seven-year punishment, the Court granted bail. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and sureties, with strict conditions to prevent misuse of bail. The trial court was instructed to expedite proceedings without unnecessary adjournments.

---