2025 (10) TMI 273 - SC - Money Laundering

Prima facie bail refused; Section 66(2) PMLA mandates sharing materials, parallel FIRs and charge sheets may proceed independently

Anil Tuteja & Anr. Versus Union Of India & Ors.

SC refused bail prima facie to the petitioner, holding that further investigation cannot proceed unless co-accused are taken into custody and that ... Challenge to FIR registered by the State of Chhattisgarh - challenge to the FIR registered by the State of Uttar Pradesh - challenge made to the ECIR registered - rejection of bail application - invocation of Section 66 (2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - information already furnished pursuant to interim orders of the Court - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, it is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner-Anil Tuteja for the reason that further investigation cannot be completed, unless the co-accused are taken into custody. Thus, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, we would only state that granting bail to the Petitioner-Anil Tuteja at this stage will impede the further investigation. On the contentions raised pertaining to the other Special Leave Petitions, there are no merit for consideration. The power under Section 66 (2) of the PMLA, 2002 is distinct and separate. Exercise of the said power has got nothing to do with the proceedings pending at the relevant point of time with the interim order, and so also the final order passed. In fact, on a perusal of Section 66 of the PMLA, 2002, we find that it is a mandatory duty of the investigating officer to share the materials collected with the other concerned agencies. Their investigation, followed by registration of the FIR and filing of the charge sheet travel on separate channels. Similarly, the contentions raised on the two FIRs do not hold water, as they have been initiated based upon the collection of further materials found within the respective States. As rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent-State, the materials found and collected are different, and so also are the witnesses. These offences are State specific. In such view of the matter, there are no reason to accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners pertaining to the two FIRs as well. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file application for regular bail or anticipatory bail, as the case may be, which will have to be considered on their own merits, without being influenced by any of the orders passed earlier or by the impugned order. SLP dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether invocation of Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and registration of separate ECIR/FIRs by different agencies/states can be impugned on the ground that information was already furnished pursuant to interim orders of the Court. 2. Whether multiple FIRs/ECIRs arising from the same factual matrix and overlapping materials collected in different States require consolidation or quashment, and whether one charge-sheet can serve as an additional charge-sheet to avoid duplication. 3. Whether parity of bail granted to most co-accused mandates grant of bail to a specific accused whose bail was rejected, having regard to period of incarceration, completion of investigation/voluminous record, and risk to ongoing investigation. 4. Whether earlier interim orders of this Court that affected disclosure of information operate to render subsequent information supplied or action under Section 66(2) PMLA without jurisdiction or non-usable. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity and scope of Section 66(2) PMLA vis-à-vis interim orders Legal framework: Section 66 of the PMLA mandates sharing of materials by the investigating officer with other concerned agencies; sub-section (2) provides a statutory duty to share information and enables parallel or follow-up action by receiving agencies. Precedent Treatment: No prior decisions were treated as controlling in the judgment; the Court addressed statutory interpretation directly. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that exercise of power under Section 66(2) is a distinct and separate statutory function, independent of interlocutory directions in earlier proceedings. Interim orders that touched on disclosure in other proceedings do not operate to annul or render subsequent lawful sharing and investigation under Section 66(2) as without jurisdiction. The statutory duty to share and consequent initiation of inquiries/FIRs in different States proceeds on separate channels even if antecedent materials overlapped. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 66(2) PMLA confers a mandatory duty to share materials and such sharing/ensuing investigations are distinct from and not vitiated by prior interim orders in unrelated proceedings. Obiter - Observations on the non-implication of earlier orders on specific factual permutations. Conclusions: Invocation of Section 66(2) and resulting ECIR/FIR registrations cannot be quashed merely because information was earlier furnished under interim orders; such information remains usable and subsequent action under the PMLA is permissible. Issue 2 - Multiplicity of FIRs/ECIRs and use of additional charge-sheet mechanism Legal framework: Criminal law permits filing of charge-sheets by investigating agencies in the State where offences are committed; procedural mechanisms allow for additional charge-sheets when further materials emerge. Precedent Treatment: The Court did not rely on or distinguish any specific precedents; analysis proceeded from statutory and factual considerations. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized that materials may be common but emphasised that conclusions, witnesses, and offence-specific materials can differ across States. Therefore, distinct FIRs registered in different States based on materials found within their territorial jurisdiction are sustainable. Where appropriate, an investigating agency may file an additional charge-sheet in an earlier-registered FIR, but that does not automatically negate the separate FIR filed in another State if independent materials and witnesses justify separate proceedings. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Separate FIRs/ECIRs based on distinct State-specific materials and witnesses are maintainable; filing of an additional charge-sheet in an earlier FIR is an available remedy but does not mandate quashment of later FIRs where independent materials exist. Obiter - Comments on the practicalities of investigation and use of additional charge-sheets. Conclusions: Challenges to multiple FIRs on the ground of duplication were rejected where investigations disclosed different material/witnesses in different States; the procedural option of treating a subsequent charge-sheet as additional to a prior FIR was directed as a means to conclude investigation but does not compel quashment of the separate FIRs in the absence of identity of materials and offences. Issue 3 - Bail parity, grounds for grant of bail, and interference with ongoing investigation Legal framework: Bail jurisprudence balances liberty of the accused against the needs of investigation and the nature of allegations; parity with co-accused is a recognised consideration but not absolute where investigative needs or distinct roles differ. Precedent Treatment: The Court did not expressly cite precedents; principles applied derive from statutory and established criminal jurisprudence. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court declined to grant bail where there were adequate materials to sustain the High Court's rejection and where granting bail would impede further investigation. Although many co-accused had been granted bail, the Court found that investigative necessities - specifically that further investigation could not be completed unless co-accused were taken into custody - justified refusal of bail to the petitioner. The Court refrained from assessing the merits of evidence at the bail stage to avoid prejudicing trial and investigation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Parity does not automatically entitle an accused to bail; where continued custody is necessary to complete investigation and grant of bail would impede inquiry, bail may be refused despite bail to co-accused. Obiter - Observations on volume of documents and witnesses as factors affecting trial duration and bail considerations. Conclusions: Bail was denied on the ground that further investigation required custody of co-accused and that assessing merits at bail stage would be inappropriate; parity of bail to co-accused was not sufficient to entitle the petitioner to release. Issue 4 - Effect of earlier interim orders on usability of collected materials and quashment of ECIR Legal framework: Interim orders operate between parties and can regulate disclosure in specific proceedings; however, statutory powers and subsequent investigative actions taken under lawful provisions are judged on their own merit. Precedent Treatment: No prior rulings were expressly followed or overruled; the Court assessed principle of non-derogation of statutory powers by interim directions. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that earlier interim directions did not specifically quash the ECIR and that technical quashment grounds do not necessarily render materials non-usable. Where statutory power was exercised subsequently (e.g., Section 66(2) PMLA), the earlier interim order does not convert later lawful information supply or investigation into action without jurisdiction. The Court noted factual sequencing where some information given earlier was followed by further material collection, reinforcing distinctness of subsequent investigative steps. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Interim orders do not ipso facto invalidate or render non-usable later-collected materials or subsequent lawful exercises of statutory powers unless those orders expressly and finally proscribe such action. Obiter - Remarks on technical pleas and their limited effect on investigative efficacy. Conclusions: The ECIR was not quashed by implication from earlier interim orders; materials collected subsequently remain usable and investigative steps taken under statutory provisions stand unless expressly constrained by a final order. Remedial and procedural directions (Court's operative conclusions) Legal framework: Court's supervisory powers to direct completion of investigation within a stipulated timeframe and to regulate interim relief. Interpretation and reasoning: To prevent further delay and to balance investigatory interests with accused persons' rights, the Court directed investigating agencies to file complaints and conclude investigations by way of additional charge-sheet within three months from receipt of the order. The Court granted liberty to seek regular or anticipatory bail thereafter, to be decided on merits uninfluenced by prior orders, and vacated prior interim orders. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where investigations are pending and multiple proceedings exist, the Court may direct expeditious filing of additional charge-sheets within a specified period and vacate interim orders to facilitate completion; accused retain liberty to seek bail thereafter on merits. Obiter - Practical expectation that High Courts will consider bail applications afresh without being influenced by earlier orders. Conclusions: Investigating agencies were directed to complete investigation and file additional charge-sheets within three months; petitioners granted liberty to approach courts for bail thereafter; interim orders previously in force were vacated. Special leave petitions were dismissed subject to these directions.