TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bail Granted to Appellants in PMLA Case; Court Cites Parity and Lengthy Trial Process</h1> <h3>AMIT AGRAWAL Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT</h3> The SC granted bail to the appellants in a case under the PMLA, 2002, after their initial bail application was dismissed. The appellants, implicated in ... Money Laundering - seeking grant of bail - appellants acted in collusion with the main accused and became beneficiaries of the proceeds of crime - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the co-accused have been granted bail. Apart from that, we have taken note of the value of the proceeds of crime that the appellants are alleged to have been involved with. We have also perused the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants which indicates the specific roles played by the coaccused who have been granted bail. Suffice it is to state that the co-accused who have been granted bail are involved with higher amounts of proceeds of crime in comparison to the appellants. Conclusion - On the grounds of parity, bail is allowed. Bail application allowed. The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellants who were aggrieved over the dismissal of their bail application in a case related to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The prosecution had filed a complaint against the appellants under Sections 3, 4, 44, and 45 of the PMLA, 2002, alleging that they colluded with the main accused and benefited from the proceeds of crime. One appellant was involved in proceeds of crime worth Rs. 2.50 crores, while the other appellant and his wife were said to have acquired proceeds of crime worth Rs. 15.41 crores.The appellants argued that they were not part of the predicate offense and were only later implicated in subsequent complaints under the PMLA, 2002. They cooperated with the investigation and had been in custody for nearly a year. The appellants cited previous court orders in support of their bail application.The respondent contended that due to the different nature of the roles assigned to the appellants compared to the co-accused who were granted bail, no parity could be sought. The respondent emphasized the gravity of the offense and opposed bail for the appellants.The Court noted that the co-accused had been granted bail and considered the value of the proceeds of crime involved in the appellants' case. It observed that the co-accused granted bail were linked to higher amounts of proceeds of crime than the appellants. Based on the principle of parity, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted bail to the appellants.Furthermore, the Court took into account the extensive trial process involving 98 witnesses and voluminous documents. It acknowledged that the trial would require a substantial amount of time for completion. Therefore, considering these factors and previous decisions, the Court granted bail to the appellants, subject to terms and conditions to be set by the Trial Court. The Trial Court was instructed to impose appropriate conditions to ensure that the appellants did not leave the country without prior permission.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, granted bail to the appellants, and disposed of any pending applications.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
