Denial of Anticipatory Bail under Money Laundering Act due to Non-Appearance

The court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, due to the applicant's continuous non-appearance and lack of cooperation with the trial process, despite previous dismissals of applications and non-bailable warrants. The court found the applicant's conduct unjustified, leading to the denial of anticipatory bail. The court emphasized that the decision was made without further observations and advised the relevant court to decide on the bail application based on facts and law independently of the current order.

---

---

Issues: Application for anticipatory bail u/s 3/4 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

In this judgment, the Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J., heard arguments from both sides regarding an application seeking anticipatory bail for the applicant in a case registered u/s 3/4 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate against several accused persons, including the applicant, for fraudulent withdrawal using fake cheques. The applicant was accused of being involved in the conspiracy and receiving a commission for depositing cheques in the account of a co-accused. The applicant's counsel argued that he had been granted bail in previous cases and should be granted anticipatory bail in this instance as well.

The respondent's counsel vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail, citing the applicant's lack of cooperation with the trial process, causing undue delays. Despite multiple dismissals of his applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and subsequent non-bailable warrants, the applicant did not appear before the trial court. The applicant's counsel explained that the case was transferred to Lucknow in 2022, and his non-appearance was due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the court found the applicant's continuous non-appearance unjustified, considering his knowledge of the case's status and his various legal challenges.

The court, without further observations, concluded that the applicant's conduct disentitled him to anticipatory bail. The applicant's counsel cited a Supreme Court case to argue for protection, emphasizing that decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts in India. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail, advising the relevant court to decide on the bail application based on the facts and the law without being influenced by the current order.

---