Anticipatory bail denied for selling fake Remdesivir injections worth Rs 2.89 crore under PMLA section 45

The MP HC dismissed an anticipatory bail application in a money laundering case involving sale of fake Remdesivir injections during Covid. The applicant purchased fake injections at Rs. 11,000 each and sold them to patients, generating proceeds of crime worth Rs. 2,89,00,000. The court held that under section 45 of PMLA 2002, bail requires satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend. Given the money trail evidence and the applicant's role in selling fake medicines endangering lives, the court found him ineligible for anticipatory bail under the stringent provisions of the Act.

---

---

Issues involved: First bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C in a case registered under the PMLA Act - Allegations of selling fake Remdesivir injections at higher prices - Request for anticipatory bail based on lack of involvement in proceeds of crime and previous grant of regular bail.

Summary:

Issue 1: Application for anticipatory bail under PMLA Act
The case involved an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C in a matter registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The applicant sought bail apprehending arrest in connection with the sale of fake Remdesivir injections at inflated prices. The court considered the provisions of section 45 of the Act, 2002, which dictate the criteria for granting bail in such cases. The court emphasized that bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit further offenses while on bail.

Issue 2: Allegations and money trail
The applicant was accused of selling fake Remdesivir injections with another individual, resulting in illegal earnings. The prosecution presented a money trail indicating proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 2,89,00,000. The court noted that the applicant, along with others, had profited unlawfully from the sale of counterfeit injections, endangering innocent lives. This money was considered proceeds of crime under the PMLA, 2002.

Issue 3: Decision and dismissal of anticipatory bail
After considering the submissions and evidence, the court concluded that due to the severity of section 45 of the Act, 2002 and the clear involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime, anticipatory bail was not warranted. The court dismissed the application, stating that the judgment cited by the applicant's counsel did not apply to the present case. The trial court's order was upheld, with instructions for the applicant to appear before the court for further proceedings.

This judgment highlights the stringent criteria for granting anticipatory bail in cases falling under the PMLA Act, emphasizing the need for strong evidence and compliance with legal provisions governing such offenses.

---