Court grants bail in PMLA case, no prima facie evidence.

The court granted bail to the applicant in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The court considered that the applicant was only alleged to be a director in transferred companies with no direct financial transactions. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the court balanced between acquittal and conviction, finding no prima facie evidence of the applicant's offense under the PMLA and no likelihood of re-offending. Bail was granted with conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure compliance with legal proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Bail Application under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
2. Allegations against the Applicant.
3. Applicant's Defense and Previous Legal Proceedings.
4. Court's Consideration and Decision on Bail.

Summary:

1. Bail Application under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA):
The present bail application was filed by the applicant seeking bail in Complaint Case No. 173/2021 arising out of ECIR/05/PMLA/LKZO/2019, under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, at the Police Station Directorate of Enforcement, District Lucknow.

2. Allegations against the Applicant:
The case was initiated based on a complaint by an Assistant Director of the Directorate of Enforcement, citing 25 FIRs against M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Ltd. (GIPL) and its promoters for cheating and misappropriation of funds. The applicant, a director in various companies related to Pantel Group, was alleged to have received approximately Rs. 600 crore from the public and GIPL. Despite a share purchase agreement and subsequent settlement agreement, the agreed amount was not paid, leading to disputes.

3. Applicant's Defense and Previous Legal Proceedings:
The applicant claimed innocence, stating he was not named in any FIRs and had no criminal history besides the predicate offense. He had already transferred the companies before the FIRs were lodged and had no financial authority in the company. The applicant had appeared in response to multiple summons and was arrested despite informing the authorities of his inability to appear due to personal reasons. He was granted bail in the predicate offenses and another case under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

4. Court's Consideration and Decision on Bail:
The court considered the facts and submissions, noting that the applicant was only alleged to be a director in the companies transferred to the accused persons. There was no allegation of financial transactions by the applicant himself. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Rohit Tondon v. Directorate of Enforcement, emphasizing the need to balance between acquittal and conviction while granting bail. The court found no prima facie evidence of the applicant committing an offense under the PMLA and noted the absence of any likelihood of the applicant re-offending. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicant, imposing conditions to ensure compliance with the legal process.

Conclusion:
The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail with conditions to prevent tampering with evidence, pressurizing witnesses, and ensuring appearance in court.

---