Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Money laundering case: Anticipatory bail denied under Section 438 CrPC for Rs. 2.89 crore proceeds involving Remdesivir price manipulation

        ASEEM BHALE S/O ASHISH BHALE Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR BHOPAL ZONE OFFICE, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

        ASEEM BHALE S/O ASHISH BHALE Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR BHOPAL ZONE OFFICE, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) - TMI Issues:
        Bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C in a case registered under PMLA Act.

        Analysis:
        1. The case involved a bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C in a matter registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act). The applicant had previously been granted regular bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with the same offense.

        2. The applicant argued that he had cooperated with the investigation, was not involved in the proceeds of crime, and no custody had been sought by the respondent during the investigation. He cited precedents where anticipatory bail had been granted in similar cases under the PMLA Act.

        3. The respondent opposed the anticipatory bail application, stating that the applicant filed it to avoid appearing before the trial court. The respondent referred to a Supreme Court judgment outlining criteria for granting anticipatory bail in PMLA cases and highlighted contradictions in the case.

        4. The court examined the provisions of section 45 of the PMLA Act, which make the offense cognizable and non-bailable. Bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offenses while on bail. The court referred to relevant judgments in this regard.

        5. The court noted that economic offenses, including those under the PMLA Act, are considered heinous and extraordinary caution is required in granting pre-arrest bail in such cases.

        6. The court detailed the applicant's involvement in selling fake Remdesivir injections and highlighted the money trail indicating proceeds of crime amounting to Rs.2,89,00,000. The court concluded that the applicant knowingly participated in illegal activities related to the proceeds of crime, leading to the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.

        7. The court emphasized that the applicant's involvement in the offense under the PMLA Act was established, and the stringent provisions of section 45 of the Act did not entitle him to anticipatory bail. The court dismissed the application and affirmed the trial court's order, directing the trial court to proceed with the case according to law upon the applicant's appearance.

        8. The judgment clarified that the precedents cited by the applicant were not applicable to the present case under the PMLA Act, and the money trail and evidence presented by the prosecution supported the denial of anticipatory bail.

        This comprehensive analysis outlines the key legal arguments, precedents, and provisions considered by the court in denying the anticipatory bail application in a case involving offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found