AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, though it was directed that since the accused/applicant at the time of passing that order was sitting in the office of DoE for interrogation, on the same day she shall not be arrested. 1.2 Thereafter, on account of change of Roster, this anticipatory bail application got listed before a coordinate bench of this Court where it remained pending for a few dates. 1.3 Finally, this anticipatory bail application was again assigned to this bench on 23.03.2026, on which date final arguments were heard and concluded, reserving the matter for orders. 2. I have heard learned senior counsel for accused/applicant and learned counsel for DoE, both of whom took me through records. 3. Broadly speaking, the circumstances relevant for present purposes as culled out of records are as follows. 3.1 On 19.02.2014, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case RCBD1/2014/E/0004 dated 19.02.2014 for offence under Section 120B and 420 IPC (hereinafter referred to as "the predicate offence") for causing loss to the Government of India. After completion of investigation, chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC was filed on 07.04.2016 against Mr. Nirmal Singh Bhangoo (now deceased),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Australasia Pty Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "PAPL") and M/s Pearls Australasia Mirage I-Pty Ltd. These two companies are recipients of the proceeds of crime, which were collected by PACL and transferred to these Australian companies through M/s. Pearls Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "PIPL"). According to the investigation, an amount of Rs.657.18 crore was siphoned off by PACL through PIPL to the said two Australian companies. Those proceeds of crime were used in purchase of various immovable properties in Australia, which properties now stand attached in accordance with law. 3.6 Further, the present accused/applicant is also a Director of M/s Maurya Healthcare (P) Ltd., which is an associate company of PACL and was involved in transfer of Rs.7.74 crores to PIPL and from there, the money was diverted to the above mentioned two Australian companies. 3.7 On the basis of intelligence reports regarding diversion of funds by PACL to foreign entities through Mr. Nirmal Singh Bhangoo, searches were conducted on 04.10.2024 at 44 premises belonging to the accused persons and the business entities associated with PACL. 3.8 Later, by way of email dated 21.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the notices. 3.13 Thereafter, it is under the directions of this court that the accused/applicant joined investigation on 25.04.2025, but she remained evasive in her replies. According to DoE, in response to the question regarding details of the companies in which she was Director, the accused/applicant stated that she had no information; similarly, the accused/applicant refused to disclose the dates when she joined and/or ceased to be Director; the accused/applicant also refused to provide any document and to disclose the source of funds pertaining to properties purchased by her; and further, on being asked to divulge regarding sale of two more immovable properties registered in her name, she feigned ignorance. 4. Against the above backdrop, learned senior counsel on behalf of the accused/applicant submitted that the accused/applicant was initially not named as an accused in the predicate offence and even in chargesheet which was filed in the year 2016; that in the ECIR of July 2016 also, the accused/applicant was not named; and that even in the first prosecution complaint of September 2018, the accused/applicant was not named. Learned senior counsel further contended that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion pertained to husband of the present accused/applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for DoE strongly opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the accused/applicant on the ground that there has to be a distinction between regular bail and anticipatory bail; that since husband of the accused/applicant was never evasive during investigation, which is not a case with the accused/applicant, he was granted bail but the accused/applicant does not deserve anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for DoE also took me through communication dated 18.03.2025 of the Lodha Committee in which on the basis of detailed investigation report of SEBI, it was stated that PACL has been siphoning off funds invested by the investors, for which DoE was expected to take action and inform the Supreme Court about the same. The said report of SEBI was handed over across the board by learned counsel and the same was accepted, to be scanned and made part of records. The said investigation report submitted by SEBI with the Lodha Committee elaborately describes the manner in which funds invested by the investors were being siphoned off by different entities and individuals including the present accused/appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....where the allegation is of money laundering of a sum less than one crore rupees. The provision under Section 45 of PMLA is couched in negative expression and begins with non-obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no person accused of an offence under the Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond. Such unusual negative expression, coupled with non-obstante qua Criminal Procedure Code while dealing with the issue of bail under PMLA clearly shows the legislative intent that in such cases, bail is not to be dealt with in routine manner solely on the basis of parameters applicable in conventional offences. The provision further stipulates: "unless" the Public Prosecutor has been given opportunity to oppose such release and where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person accused of an offence under the Act is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The blanket of those twin conditions is partially lifted by way of the proviso in order to deal with an accused, who is under 16 years of age or is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But this view flowing from the Supreme Court cannot be overstretched in the name of dilution of the twin conditions to the extent of making the twin conditions nugatory. The said view deals with prolonged incarceration; it does not advocate complete bar on custodial interrogation. Any such interpretation of the interplay between Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 45 of PMLA would completely destroy the nature and purpose of investigation. Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be read in a manner that completely blocks custodial interrogation. For, it cannot be disputed that custodial interrogation in certain kind of cases is much more effective than interrogation of a person who goes to the investigator with protection from arrest in his pocket. The line of judicial pronouncements qua dilution of the twin conditions pertain to the issues of regular bail and not anticipatory bail, especially where the investigating agency expresses need for custodial interrogation. 4.3 The Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate vs Dr. V.C. Mohan, (2022) 16 SCC 794 held: "Indeed, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l settled by the various decisions of this Court and policy of the State as also the view of international community that the offence of money- laundering is committed by an individual with a deliberate design with the motive to enhance his gains, disregarding the interests of nation and society as a whole and which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as offence of trivial nature. Thus, it is in the interest of the State that law enforcement agencies should be provided with a proportionate effective mechanism so as to deal with these types of offences as the wealth of the nation is to be safeguarded from these dreaded criminals. As discussed above, the conspiracy of money- laundering, which is a three-staged process, is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness, thus, it becomes imperative for the State to frame such a stringent law, which not only punishes the offender proportionately, but also helps in preventing the offence and creating a deterrent effect. xxxxx The Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the Court based on available material on record is required. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations." 9.5 On the aspect of bail in cases involving socio- economic offences, differential treatment in consideration unlike conventional crimes has been the law of land, reiterated in a plethora of judicial pronouncement flowing from apex court. Reference, to cite a few may be drawn from Rohit Tandon vs Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46; Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Nitin Johari, (2019) 9 SCC 165; and Nimmagadda Prasad vs CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466." 4.5 The judgment in the case of Vedpal Singh Tanwar (supra) on being challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 10839/2025 was not unsettled." 7. The legal position discussed in all above noted judicial precedents as cited by both sides is not at variance. What is relevant in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the next date (29.04.2025), the supervising officer of DoE informed that after last date of hearing, the accused/applicant was called four times for her interrogation but on first three occasions, she was evasive and the fourth occasion was the same day (29.04.2025), when the present matter was listed, but she took exemption from interrogation. On that day (29.04.2025) the learned prosecutor also expressed concern that the accused/applicant continued to dispose of property in order to defeat orders of the Lodha Committee appointed by the Supreme Court. On assurance of the counsel for the accused/applicant that till next date she will not dispose of any property, the interim protection till next was extended so that the interrogation could continue. 9.2 On the next date (09.05.2025), the matter could be heard only partly and had to be adjourned for paucity of time, however, learned prosecutor objected to grant of any further protection to the accused/applicant from arrest, disclosing her falsehoods on oath aimed at misleading and obstructing the investigation. On that day (09.05.2025), the accused/applicant even filed an affidavit, contents of which were found contrary to her a....