TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere is no substantial case against the petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He firmly states that the petitioner has not generated funds through illicit activities. Even if the petitioner secured the tender without full eligibility and there are inaccuracies in the certification, it's essential to recognise that the petitioner actively executed various works under the contract of the Jal Jeevan Mission, investing significant resources to meet the obligations outlined in government-issued work orders. Moreover, the relevant department has deposited the amount in the petitioner's account accordingly. 3. While the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has yet to arrest the petitioner regarding the predicate offence, charge sheets have been filed against other co-accused individuals in the predicate offence. The petitioner has not been arrested nor charge sheeted in the predicate offence. Padam Chand Jain, the other co-accused, also received a contract based on an allegedly fraudulent IRCON certificate and has been granted bail due to prolonged detention and the unlikelihood of a trial. The petitioner's circumstances, including the nature of the allegations....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....co-accused individuals, specifically Manoj Pathak, Padam Chand Jain, and Sanjay Badaya, underscore the petitioner's significant involvement in the alleged crime. It is alleged that the petitioner secured a contract using the forged certificate, leading to proceeds of crime amounting to 367.56 crore rupees. 8. It is clear that the stipulations of Section 45 of the PMLA are mandatory, and the court must deny bail until it determines that there is insufficient evidence against the petitioner regarding the alleged crime. The ASG has referred to judgment of Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Directorate Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486 (SLP Criminal Appeal No.9431/2023), wherein it was held that conditions specified under Section 45 of the PMLA are mandatory and Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused. The parity is also misconceived. The apprehension of trial is likely to take any time and the accused would be incarcerated for indefinite period, is also not well founded, as the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. 9. Heard perused the material along with the Judgment cited by the par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt ought to have given due weightage to this factor. 51. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider an application for bail in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 wherein the accused was proseucted under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This Court surveyed the entire law right from the judgment of this Court in cases of Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 1 SCC 240 : 1977 INSC 232, Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 INSC 68, Hussainara Khatoon and Others (I) v. Home Secretary, Stateof Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 : 1979 INSC 34, Union of India V. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 : 2021 INSC 50 and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCC 51 : 2022 INSC 690. The Court observed thus: "19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be permitted to become punishment without trial. 55. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial. 56. In the present case, the appellant is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from 36 the country and not being available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State. 57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's subsequent judgment in Kalvakuntla Kavitha Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) reiterated the observations made in Manish ....