TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under the proviso to section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on medical grounds; (ii) Whether the arrest and remand of the petitioner were vitiated for non-compliance with section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (iii) Whether the stay of proceedings in the scheduled offence justified suspension of the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under the proviso to section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on medical grounds.
Analysis: The petitioner's medical condition was examined on the basis of the report of the Medical Board constituted by the PGIMER. The report recorded multiple ailments but stated that they were not life threatening and could be managed by treatment and regular follow-up. The subsequent angiography showed only insignificant blockage of the coronary arteries and normal heart function, with no need for surgery. The record also showed that the petitioner was receiving adequate medical care in the government medical facility. The Court held that the petitioner did not fall within the proviso to section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Conclusion: The medical plea for bail was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the arrest and remand of the petitioner were vitiated for non-compliance with section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: The grounds of arrest were found to disclose the petitioner's alleged role in aiding the diversion, layering, and siphoning of funds, issuing false certificates, and facilitating generation and laundering of proceeds of crime. The Court held that the arresting officer had recorded reasons to believe on the basis of material collected during investigation, and that the law did not require the arresting officer to disclose all such material in the grounds of arrest. The petitioner's non-appearance despite summons, the need to trace the money trail, and the risk of tampering with evidence supported the arrest. The remand order was not found to be mechanical or illegal.
Conclusion: The challenge to the arrest and remand failed.
Issue (iii): Whether the stay of proceedings in the scheduled offence justified suspension of the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: The Court held that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are distinct and independent from the scheduled offence. A stay granted in the predicate FIR does not automatically extend to money laundering proceedings. The petitioner could not claim bail merely on the basis that proceedings in the scheduled offence had been stayed.
Conclusion: The plea to keep the money laundering proceedings in abeyance was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The Court found no ground to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail and upheld the continuation of the money laundering proceedings independently of the stayed predicate case.
Ratio Decidendi: Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can be refused where the material discloses a prima facie involvement in money laundering, the statutory conditions for bail are not satisfied, and proceedings under the Act remain independent of any stay in the scheduled offence.
TaxTMI 
