Court grants pre-arrest bail under PML Act citing health, previous bail, not main accused.

Pramod Agarwal Versus The State of A.P., Directorate of Enforcement

Pramod Agarwal Versus The State of A.P., Directorate of Enforcement - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of pre-arrest bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act).
2. Petitioner's non-cooperation with the investigation.
3. Petitioner's health and personal circumstances.
4. Previous bail orders and their applicability after the case transfer.
5. Legal precedents on pre-arrest bail in economic offences.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Pre-Arrest Bail under the PML Act:
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with offences under the PML Act. The prosecution argued that the PML Act does not provide for anticipatory bail, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in *Vakamulla Chandrasekhar vs. Enforcement Directorate*, which stated that the PML Act excludes the relief of statutory anticipatory bail. However, the petitioner countered with the Manipur High Court's ruling in *Okram Ibobi Singh vs. Directorate of Enforcement*, which supported the grant of anticipatory bail to protect personal liberty. The court decided not to delve deeply into this legal contention, concluding that the application for pre-arrest bail is maintainable as the petitioner was only issued summons under Section 50 of the PML Act.

2. Petitioner's Non-Cooperation with the Investigation:
The prosecution contended that the petitioner had intentionally failed to appear before the Directorate of Enforcement since 2017, suggesting a lack of cooperation. Despite multiple summonses, the petitioner provided various excuses, including health issues and personal inconvenience, for his non-appearance. The court noted that the petitioner had submitted documents and medical reports to justify his absence and expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation. The court found that the petitioner had not received the summons in 2017 but only in 2020, and thus the delay in his appearance was justified.

3. Petitioner's Health and Personal Circumstances:
The petitioner cited health issues, including a surgery in February and his wife's cancer treatment, as reasons for his inability to appear before the investigation authorities. The court acknowledged these personal circumstances and considered them while deciding on the bail application.

4. Previous Bail Orders and Their Applicability After Case Transfer:
The petitioner and his son had previously been granted anticipatory bail by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - Cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in connection with crime No. 181 of 2017. However, after the case was transferred to CID Visakhapatnam, the officials attempted to arrest the petitioner, arguing that the previous bail order was not binding on them. The court dismissed this contention, affirming that the initial bail order continued to bind the investigating agency even after the case transfer.

5. Legal Precedents on Pre-Arrest Bail in Economic Offences:
The prosecution relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including *Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy vs. CBI* and *P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement*, which emphasized the seriousness of money laundering offences and generally opposed pre-arrest bail in such cases. The court recognized the gravity of money laundering but distinguished the present case, noting that the petitioner was not the main accused and had only been issued summons under Section 50 of the PML Act. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in *Siddharam Satilingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra* for considering pre-arrest bail applications, emphasizing a balance between investigation needs and personal liberty.

Conclusion:
Considering the petitioner's health condition, previous bail orders, and the fact that he was not the main accused, the court granted pre-arrest bail. The petitioner was directed to execute a self-bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and to cooperate with the investigation. The prosecution was given the liberty to seek bail cancellation if the petitioner failed to cooperate. Consequently, all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.