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 denies bail in PMLA case with pending warrants for accused in custody.</h1> <h3>Avtar Singh And A Vennugopal Reddy Versus Enforcement Directorate</h3> The Court dismissed the bail applications in a case involving a bail application under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA Act, 2002, filed without arrest but ... Seeking grant of Regular Bail - money laundering - predicate offences - petitioner not being released on account of production warrants - rigour of Section 45 of the PMLA Act met or not - HELD THAT:- In the instance case, it is an admitted case that even after the issuance of production warrants, the accused persons have not been formally arrested as yet by the ED. The petitioners were in custody in predicate offences for more than 9 years and no admittedly, have been admitted to bail for the predicate offences. However, admittedly, they have not been released on account of production warrants issued by the learned Trial Court subsequent to the filing of the complaint by the ED. Since the petitioners have yet not been taken into formal custody in this case, the bail applications filed by the accused persons are infructuous - Hence, the bail applications along with pending applications are dismissed. Issues involved: Bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA Act, 2002, conflicting judgments, rigour of Section 45 of PMLA Act, non-arrest situation, production warrants, amount laundered, possession of money.Summary:Regular Bail Application:The petitioner filed a bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case recorded by the Enforcement Directorate under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA Act, 2002. The complaint was filed without arrest, but production warrants were later issued by the Special Court, preventing the release of the accused persons. The petitioner argued that the rigour of Section 45 of the PMLA Act should not apply as the laundered amount was less than Rs. 1 crore, and the accused had been in custody for predicate offences for over 9 years without being released on bail.Opposition by ED:The Special Counsel for ED opposed the bail application, citing a Supreme Court judgment that even if a complaint is filed without arrest, the accused must comply with Section 45 of the PMLA Act. It was contended that the total amount laundered in the case exceeded Rs. 150 crores, contradicting the petitioner's claims regarding the possession of smaller amounts by the accused individuals.Judicial Decision:The Court noted that the accused persons had not been formally arrested by the ED despite the issuance of production warrants. As the petitioners were already in custody for predicate offences and had not been released on bail due to the production warrants, the bail applications were deemed infructuous. The Court dismissed the bail applications, recalled any production warrants, and directed the release of the accused persons from jail if not required in any other case. The concerned Jail Superintendent was instructed to receive a copy of the order.Conflicting Judgments:Additionally, it was highlighted that the judgment relied upon by the petitioners was in direct conflict with another judgment of the same court, indicating a lack of consistency in legal interpretations within the jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
