https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444308 The court dismissed the petition seeking default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., as it found that the investigation in the first case was complete and cognizance had been taken. The court noted that subsequent complaints and further investigation were allowed under Section 44 of the PMLA, 2002. The petitioner's arguments regarding incomplete investigation were rejected, and the court relied on the prosecution complaint filing date and cognizance taken date to conclude that default bail was not warranted. The petition was dismissed, and any pending petitions were also dismissed accordingly. en-us Wed, 04 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Oct 2023 08:58:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444308 The court dismissed the petition seeking default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., as it found that the investigation in the first case was complete and cognizance had been taken. The court noted that subsequent complaints and further investigation were allowed under Section 44 of the PMLA, 2002. The petitioner's arguments regarding incomplete investigation were rejected, and the court relied on the prosecution complaint filing date and cognizance taken date to conclude that default bail was not warranted. The petition was dismissed, and any pending petitions were also dismissed accordingly. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 04 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444308