Court grants bail based on applicant's cooperation in investigation and violation of Cr.P.C. sections. Bail conditions imposed.

The court allowed the bail application, considering the applicant's cooperation in the investigation, lack of arrest during the investigation phase, and the violation of mandatory provisions of Sections 204(3) and 208 Cr.P.C. The court imposed bail conditions to secure the applicant's presence during trial and prevent misuse of liberty. The decision was based on precedents emphasizing that arrest is not obligatory if the accused has cooperated during the investigation. The court clarified that its observations were solely for bail determination and should not impact the trial's merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicant's arrest and judicial custody.
2. Compliance with Section 204(3) and 208 Cr.P.C.
3. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA.
4. Applicant's cooperation in the investigation.
5. Comparison with precedents and judicial guidelines for bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicant's Arrest and Judicial Custody:
The applicant was taken into custody on 10.01.2023 in connection with the Sessions Case No.2791 of 2022 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The applicant had been cooperating with the investigation and had not been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) during the investigation phase. Despite this cooperation, the applicant was taken into custody when he appeared before the trial court, and his bail application was subsequently rejected on 24.01.2023.

2. Compliance with Section 204(3) and 208 Cr.P.C.:
The summons issued to the applicant did not include a copy of the prosecution complaint or relevant documents, violating Sections 204(3) and 208 Cr.P.C. These sections mandate that every summons must be accompanied by a copy of the complaint and relevant documents must be furnished to the accused without delay. The court noted that this non-compliance was admitted by the E.D. in their counter affidavit.

3. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA:
The trial court denied bail to the applicant based on the twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA, which require that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offense and that he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. However, the court observed that since the applicant had not been arrested during the investigation and had cooperated fully, the stringent conditions of Section 45 should not apply in this case.

4. Applicant's Cooperation in the Investigation:
The applicant had been cooperating with the E.D. throughout the investigation, appearing when summoned and providing statements under Section 50 of PMLA. The E.D. did not find it necessary to arrest the applicant during the investigation, indicating that his cooperation was satisfactory.

5. Comparison with Precedents and Judicial Guidelines for Bail:
The court referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court judgments in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, which emphasize that arrest is not mandatory if the accused has cooperated during the investigation. The court also cited the Delhi High Court's judgment in Rana Kapoor vs. Directorate of Enforcement, which granted bail under similar circumstances. The court concluded that the applicant's case fell within the guidelines for granting bail without arrest, as outlined in these precedents.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the bail application, noting that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation, had not been arrested during the investigation, and that the mandatory provisions of Sections 204(3) and 208 Cr.P.C. had been violated. The court imposed conditions on the applicant's bail to ensure his presence during the trial and prevent any misuse of the liberty granted. The court emphasized that the observations made were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and should not influence the trial's merits.

---