Court denies bail due to money laundering scheme & lack of cooperation. Decision won't impact trial judgment.

The court denied the bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. due to the petitioner's involvement in a significant money laundering scheme, lack of cooperation with the investigation, and the gravity of the offense. The court highlighted that its decision would not impact the trial court's judgment on the case's merits. The bail application and the related I.A. were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Allegations of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
3. Investigation and evidence against the petitioner.
4. Compliance with Section 45 of the PMLA for bail.
5. Filing of supplementary complaints by the Enforcement Directorate.
6. Petitioner's alleged non-cooperation with the investigation.
7. Retrospective application of penal laws/scheduled offences.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Application Under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner sought bail in connection with Complaint Case C.M.C. (PMLA) No.47 of 2017. The court considered the petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Allegations of Money Laundering:
The case originated from an FIR alleging that M/s. Fine Indisales Pvt. Ltd (FIPL) defrauded the public through a deceptive investment scheme. The investigation revealed that FIPL collected approximately Rs. 703 crores from the public through a Ponzi scheme and laundered the money through various shell companies and bogus transactions. The petitioner was implicated in these activities, specifically involving the transfer of Rs. 25 crores to M/s. Lemon Entertainment Ltd., where he was a director.

3. Investigation and Evidence Against the Petitioner:
The investigation showed that the petitioner and his associates transferred large sums of money through multiple accounts to conceal the original source of funds, constituting money laundering. The petitioner and his father held significant shares in M/s. Lemon Entertainment Ltd., and the petitioner was involved in the company's financial transactions. The petitioner was also found to have avoided multiple summonses issued by the Enforcement Directorate.

4. Compliance with Section 45 of the PMLA for Bail:
Section 45 of the PMLA makes the offence of money laundering non-bailable. The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit any offence while on bail. The Supreme Court's rulings in Gautam Kundu vs. Manoj Kumar and other cases were cited to emphasize the mandatory nature of these conditions. The court found that the petitioner did not meet these conditions.

5. Filing of Supplementary Complaints by the Enforcement Directorate:
The petitioner argued that the supplementary complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate was not permissible. However, the court held that further investigation and filing of supplementary complaints are allowed under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and are applicable to investigations under special statutes like the PMLA. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Directorate of Enforcement vs. Deepak Mahajan and S.R. Sukumar vs. S. Sunaad Raghuram to support this view.

6. Petitioner's Alleged Non-Cooperation with the Investigation:
The petitioner was found to have avoided 10 out of 11 summonses issued by the Enforcement Directorate, indicating non-cooperation. The prosecution argued that the petitioner might flee, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses if released on bail. The court took a serious view of this non-cooperation and the petitioner's attempts to evade the investigation.

7. Retrospective Application of Penal Laws/Scheduled Offences:
The petitioner raised the issue of the retrospective application of penal laws, but the court did not delve into this matter for the purposes of the bail application. The court focused on the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in money laundering activities.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the bail application, citing the petitioner's significant role in the money laundering scheme, non-cooperation with the investigation, and the serious nature of the offence. The court emphasized that the observations made would not influence the trial court's decision on the merits of the case. The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the connected I.A. were dismissed.

---