TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court grants anticipatory bail to bank officials accused of money laundering under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.</h1> <h3>Anoop Kumar Das, C Adinarayana, Rajesh Agrawal, Indranil Ghosh Versus Enforcement Directorate Through Investing Officer</h3> Anoop Kumar Das, C Adinarayana, Rajesh Agrawal, Indranil Ghosh Versus Enforcement Directorate Through Investing Officer - TMI Issues:1. Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC in connection with a complaint case pending for offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.2. Consideration of the application based on the allegations against the applicants and the nature of the accusations.3. Arguments presented by both the applicants and the non-applicant Department regarding the need for custodial interrogation and the eligibility for anticipatory bail.4. Analysis of relevant legal provisions under the PMLA, 2002 and CrPC in determining the grant of anticipatory bail.The judgment addresses an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC by the applicants fearing arrest in a complaint case involving offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The complaint alleged that the applicants, bank officials, were involved in opening 446 bank accounts without following proper procedures. The applicants argued that they were unaware of any offence and that no custodial interrogation was necessary. The non-applicant Department contended that the applicants were part of a scheme involving benami bank accounts and money laundering. Both sides cited legal precedents to support their arguments.The Court considered the nature of the accusations against the applicants and the background of the case. It was noted that there was no requirement for custodial interrogation of the applicants. Despite refraining from commenting on the merits of the case, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, emphasizing their cooperation with the investigation and imposing conditions for their release upon arrest.The applicants' senior counsel highlighted the relaxations provided under the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, 2002 for certain categories of persons, including senior citizens and infirm individuals. The Court acknowledged the applicants' status as retired or nearing retirement and extended anticipatory bail to them based on the nature of the allegations and the lack of custodial interrogation necessity.In conclusion, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing the release of the applicants upon arrest on the condition of executing a personal bond and complying with specified terms, including making themselves available for interrogation, refraining from influencing witnesses, ensuring a fair trial, and attending all trial court dates until the case's disposal.
TaxTMI 