2022 (11) TMI 1232 - HC - Money Laundering

Court grants bail to applicant who cooperated, not arrested during investigation. Conditions apply.

Rana Kapoor Versus Directorate Of Enforcement

Rana Kapoor Versus Directorate Of Enforcement - TMI Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Interpretation and applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in Satinder Kumar Antil v. CBI.3. Compliance with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for granting bail.4. Consideration of merits for granting bail in economic offences under special statutes.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The court examined whether Section 170 of the Code mandates the arrest of an accused before filing a charge sheet. The Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State of UP clarified that it is not necessary for the police to arrest the accused prior to filing the charge sheet, nor could the Court direct that the accused be arrested and produced before it at the time of filing the charge sheet. The court reiterated that if the prosecution does not require custody of the accused, there is no need for an arrest when forwarding the case to the magistrate under Section 170.2. Interpretation and Applicability of the Supreme Court's Judgment in Satinder Kumar Antil v. CBI:The applicant argued that as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Satinder Kumar Antil, he is entitled to bail since he was not arrested during the investigation and cooperated fully. The court noted that the Supreme Court categorized offences and provided guidelines for granting bail. The applicant fell under Category C, which includes offences under special acts like PMLA. The court emphasized that the bail application should be decided on merits, considering the stringent provisions of the special acts.3. Compliance with Section 45 of the PMLA for Granting Bail:The court discussed the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, which requires that the Public Prosecutor be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application and that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court noted that these conditions apply when the bail application is filed after the arrest during the investigation or under Section 438 of the Code. Since the applicant was not arrested during the investigation, these stringent conditions were not applicable in this case.4. Consideration of Merits for Granting Bail in Economic Offences Under Special Statutes:The court considered the gravity of the offence, the severity of the punishment, and the applicant's cooperation during the investigation. The court observed that the applicant was not arrested during the investigation, cooperated fully, and there was no allegation of non-cooperation. The court also noted that the applicant was taken into custody only after the dismissal of his bail application by the Special Judge. The court found that the applicant's case was different from the co-accused who was arrested during the investigation and denied bail.Conclusion:The court allowed the bail application, emphasizing that the applicant was not arrested during the investigation, cooperated fully, and the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were not applicable. The court granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions such as not influencing witnesses, keeping the mobile phone number provided to the Investigating Officer active, not indulging in criminal activities, and not leaving the country without prior permission from the trial/special court.