Petitioner's Anticipatory Bail Denied, Petition Dismissed, CRM Cases Deemed Moot

The court denied the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail due to the ongoing investigation, validity of attachment orders, inapplicability of cited precedents, and the petitioner's non-compliant conduct. The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, clarifying that its observations should not impact the case's merits. CRM Nos. 23269 & 18681 of 2021 were deemed moot following the final adjudication of the main petition and were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the anticipatory bail request by the petitioner.
2. Validity and duration of the attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
3. Applicability of legal precedents cited by the petitioner.
4. Consideration of the petitioner’s age and health.
5. Conduct of the petitioner in relation to court orders and compliance.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the anticipatory bail request by the petitioner:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, fearing arrest in a criminal case under various sections of the IPC, related to the NSEL Scam involving Rs. 5600 crore. The court noted that the investigation was still at a nascent stage and the petitioner had not yet joined it. The court emphasized that at this stage, it is not appropriate to determine whether the alleged offenses are made out or not.

2. Validity and duration of the attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA):
The petitioner argued that the attachment order had lapsed as per Section 8(3) of the PMLA, which limits the validity to 365 days. However, the court found that the attachment order continues during the pendency of proceedings before the court. The court highlighted that the charge-sheet had already been presented and the trial was pending, thus the attachment order was still in force. The petitioner’s appeal against the attachment orders further indicated their validity.

3. Applicability of legal precedents cited by the petitioner:
The petitioner relied on the case of Seema Garg Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, but the court found it inapplicable as the circumstances differed significantly. In Seema Garg, the investigation was pending, and the appellants were not accused in the FIR or the complaint. In contrast, the petitioner in this case was already charge-sheeted, and the trial was ongoing. The court also dismissed the relevance of Md. Ibrahim & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as it pertained to an appeal against charge framing, not anticipatory bail.

4. Consideration of the petitioner’s age and health:
The petitioner’s counsel argued for bail citing the petitioner’s age (73 years) and poor health, referencing the judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. The court noted that the directions in Arnesh Kumar applied to offenses punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, whereas the current case involved Section 467 IPC, which is punishable with life imprisonment. Thus, the petitioner’s age and health did not merit anticipatory bail in this context.

5. Conduct of the petitioner in relation to court orders and compliance:
The court scrutinized the petitioner’s conduct, noting multiple instances of non-compliance with court orders, including the sale of attached properties despite explicit directions not to do so. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s actions demonstrated a pattern of evading legal obligations and flouting court orders, which weighed against granting anticipatory bail. The court also highlighted the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the involvement of other individuals and officials in the disposal of attached properties.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner did not deserve anticipatory bail due to the ongoing investigation, the validity of the attachment orders, the inapplicability of cited precedents, and the petitioner’s non-compliant conduct. The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed, with a clarification that the court’s observations should not influence the merits of the case.

CRM Nos.23269 & 18681 of 2021:
These applications were rendered infructuous due to the final adjudication of the main petition and were disposed of accordingly.

---