2021 (1) TMI 662 - HC - Money Laundering

Court denies extension of interim bail for Amrapali Group Director amidst financial irregularities

Anil Kumar Sharma Versus U.O.I. Thru. Directorate Of Enforcement

The court dismissed the application for extension of interim bail under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a Director in the Amrapali Group of Companies, implicated ... Seeking extension of the period of interim bail granted - Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- As it is evident that the order dated 09.12.2020 passed in Bail Application No.5974 of 2020 of applicant is not appended with the present application and it is well settled as per the doctrine of merger that the interim order is automatically merged in the final order, and in the present case, the order of interim bail dated 14.10.2020 passed in Bail Application No.5974 of 2020 is merged in the final order dated 09.12.2020 passed in Bail Application No.5974 of 2020, therefore, it is open to the applicant either to move his second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. or challenge the rejection order dated 09.12.2020, but in place of doing so, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with a prayer that the interim bail granted by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2020 passed in bail application No.5974 of 2020 be extended for a period of ten weeks, which is not permissible, therefore, the Court is of the view that the present application (U/S 482 Cr.P.C.) of applicant for extension of his interim bail is not maintainable. The application is misconceived and is, thus, hereby dismissed. Issues involved:Extension of interim bail granted under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Analysis:The applicant, a Director in the Amrapali Group of Companies, sought an extension of interim bail granted on medical grounds. The applicant was implicated in various cases, including under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The initial interim bail was granted for six weeks on medical grounds, allowing treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi. The opposing counsel argued against the maintainability of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., citing the rejection of the previous bail application on merit. The opposing counsel highlighted the financial irregularities involving the Amrapali Group and the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding diversion of funds. The opposing counsel emphasized that the present application for extension of interim bail is not maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to the rejection of the previous bail application on merit.The court considered the arguments presented by both parties. It noted the serious financial fraud involving the Amrapali Group and the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding fund diversion. The court acknowledged the registration of a case under the PMLA Act against the applicant and the subsequent rejection of the previous bail application on merit. The court emphasized the doctrine of merger, stating that the interim order automatically merges with the final order. As the rejection order of the previous bail application was not appended to the present application, the court concluded that the applicant could either file a second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. or challenge the rejection order dated 09.12.2020. However, the court found the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for extension of interim bail to be misconceived and dismissed it accordingly.The court directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with the law and instructed the office to communicate the order to the trial court promptly for necessary compliance.