AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2002) and punishable under Section 4 of the said Act, the Directorate of Enforcement has preferred the present appeal. 2. A FIR was registered by Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Bhopal vide FIR No. 12/2019 dated 10.04.2019 wherein 20 persons/companies were named as suspected in the said scam. M/s Max Mantena Micro JV, Hyderabad was one among them. 2.1 As per the FIR, the Government of Madhya Pradesh eProcurement Portal was being run by MPSEDC. M/s Antares Systems Limited, Bangalore and M/s Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) were given the contract for the period of 5 years for the maintenance & operation of the said portal. Some of the officials of MPSEDC in collusion with the companies entrusted with maintenance and testing of the portals namely M/s Osmo IT Solutions and M/s Antares Systems Ltd, illegally accessed the eTender portal and rigged the bidding process to suit a few private bidders for huge amounts of bribe considerations. 2.2 As per the investigating agency, the preliminary investigation by the Police established that various etenders were illegally accessed and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pradesh, was summoned by the ED to explain the sudden spurt in the allocation of tenders to M/s Mantena Construction during his stint in the State of MP. 2.7 That apprehending his arrest in connection with ED case for the scheduled offence under the Act, 2002, respondent No. 1 herein approached the High Court by way of present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. Without considering the rigour/bar under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 and observing that as per the decision of this Court in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Unoin of India and Anr.; (2018) 11 SCC 1, the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 do not apply to Section 438 Cr.PC proceedings, the High Court has allowed the anticipatory bail application and has directed that in case of his arrest in connection with ED case he be released on bail. 2.8 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 1 in ED case, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri K. M. Nataraj, learned ASG, appearing on behalf of the ED - appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of money laundering. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 was summoned by ED but instead of appearing before the IO, he filed a criminal petition before the High Court and obtained the interim relief. It is submitted that he appeared before the ED and his statement was recorded under Section 50 of the Act, 2002. It is submitted that however on both the occasions he was totally evasive and noncooperative and therefore, his custodial interrogation is required. 3.5 It is further submitted by learned ASG that during the investigation the ED has found that respondent No. 1 had availed and enjoyed free trips in last one year alone on the luxury plane of Mantena on multiple occasions. It is submitted that during investigation it has been found that respondent No. 1 had also availed other patronages from Srinivas Raju Mantena like sponsoring foreign exchange through Hawala Channels for his son. 3.6 It is submitted that while granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 1 the High Court has not considered the nature of allegations and seriousness of offences alleged against respondent No. 1 who at the relevant time was working as an Additional Chief Secretary. 3.7 Making the above su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime. 4.7 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 that in the present case cogent reasons have been given by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 1 and considering the fact that respondent No. 1 has cooperated in the investigation and appeared twice earlier before the IO/ED, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail may not be interfered with by this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respondent No. 1 is apprehending his arrest in connection with the complaint/case by the ED for the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. An enquiry/investigation is going on against respondent No. 1 for the scheduled offence in connection with FIR No. 12/2019. Once the enquiry/investigation against respondent No. 1 is going on for the offence under the Act, 2002, the rigour of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 would be attracted. Section 45 of the Act, 2002 reads as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah (supra) this Court has held that the rigour of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall not be applicable to the application under Section 438 Cr. PC. In the case of Dr. V.C. Mohan (supra) in which the decision of this Court in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah (supra) was pressed into service, it is specifically observed by this Court that it is one thing to say that Section 45 of the Act, 2002 to offences under the ordinary law would not get attracted but once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the Act, 2002, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of the Act, must get triggered - although the application is under Section 438 Cr.PC. Therefore, the observations made by the High Court that the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall not be applicable in connection with an application under Section 438 Cr.PC is just contrary to the decision in the case of Dr. V.C. Mohan (supra) and the same is on misunderstanding of the observations made in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah (supra). Once the rigour under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall be applicable the impugned judgment and order passed by the....