Anticipatory bail granted under Prevention of Money Laundering Act

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, considering her cooperation with the investigation and the debatable nature of her involvement in the alleged crime. The bail was subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds to the trial court's satisfaction, with a specific emphasis that the decision did not reflect on the main case's merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of anticipatory bail under PMLA 2002.
2. Allegations of VAT refund fraud.
3. Transfer of proceeds of crime.
4. Validity of supplementary complaint under PMLA 2002.
5. Application of Section 45 of PMLA 2002.
6. Previous court orders on property attachment.
7. Conduct of the petitioner and co-accused.
8. Provisions for leniency in cases of women under PMLA 2002.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Anticipatory Bail under PMLA 2002:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a complaint instituted by the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA 2002). The petitioner argued that she had associated with the investigation and that no new evidence had emerged to justify a supplementary complaint. The court noted that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and that her involvement in the alleged crime was debatable.

2. Allegations of VAT Refund Fraud:
The allegations against M/s Jaldhara Exports, Ludhiana, included forging documents to claim a VAT refund of approximately Rs. 1.56 crores based on non-existent exports. An FIR was registered against the main accused, and upon investigation, a challan was filed. The petitioner was implicated in a supplementary complaint filed later.

3. Transfer of Proceeds of Crime:
The accused transferred the VAT refund amount to various accounts, including the petitioner's firm. The court acknowledged that an amount of Rs. 30 lacs had been credited to the petitioner's account and withdrawn on the same day through self-cheques and a cheque to Umesh Kumar Garg.

4. Validity of Supplementary Complaint under PMLA 2002:
The petitioner challenged the supplementary complaint's validity, arguing that no new evidence had emerged. The court found that Section 44 of PMLA 2002 allows for supplementary complaints if new evidence is discovered. The initial complaint stated that the investigation was ongoing, and the supplementary complaint was filed within legal provisions.

5. Application of Section 45 of PMLA 2002:
The court examined Section 45, which imposes restrictions on granting bail unless the court believes the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit the offence again. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment clarifying that Section 45 applies to anticipatory bail applications under PMLA 2002. However, the proviso to Section 45(1) provides leniency for women, among others.

6. Previous Court Orders on Property Attachment:
The petitioner's property had been provisionally attached, but the attachment was set aside by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. The court clarified that setting aside attachment proceedings, which have civil consequences, does not affect the continuation of criminal proceedings.

7. Conduct of the Petitioner and Co-Accused:
The state counsel argued that the petitioner's conduct, including evading summons, indicated a tendency to flee from justice. The court found no evidence of intentional evasion and noted that the investigating agency had also delayed proceeding against the petitioner.

8. Provisions for Leniency in Cases of Women under PMLA 2002:
The court considered the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA 2002, which allows for leniency in granting bail to women. The petitioner, a 61-year-old woman, had cooperated with the investigation, and there was no evidence suggesting she would flee from justice. The court found her case fit for anticipatory bail under this proviso.

Conclusion:
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, ordering her release upon arrest, subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds to the trial court's satisfaction. The court emphasized that the observations made were not to be taken as an expression on the merits of the main case.

---