TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistered by the Directorate of Enforcement under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA on the basis of various scheduled offences, namely FIR Nos. 76/2025, 86/2025, 87/2025, 134/2025, 135/2025 and 322/2025. FIR No. 76/2025 pertaining to allegations of cheating, inducement and fraudulent transactions relating to SARFAESI properties and forged documents. 4. During the investigation of the scheduled offences, notices dated 24.11.2025 and 01.12.2025 were issued to the Petitioner by the investigating agency requiring his participation in the investigation, to which replies were submitted through counsel on 27.11.2025 and 05.12.2025 respectively. In the meantime, complaints dated 26.11.2025 and 20.02.2026 came to be lodged by the Petitioner regarding threats allegedly received from gangsters demanding ransom, pursuant to which FIR No.107/2026 was registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden on 17.03.2026 on the complaint of the Petitioner and his son. 5. On 18.05.2026, the Directorate of Enforcement conducted search proceedings under the provisions of the PMLA at the residential premises of the Petitioner at Subhash Nagar, New Delhi. During the course of the search, bank records, and other d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....late to alleged cheating, inducement, forged documents and transactions concerning SARFAESI properties, with the principal allegations being against Mohit Gogia and other accused persons. There is no allegation in the predicate offences that the petitioner induced any complainant to part with money, forged any document, participated in the alleged property transactions or personally committed any act constituting the scheduled offence. 10. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner is engaged in the business of finance and has undertaken regular financial transactions in the ordinary course of business. The mere transfer or receipt of funds through the accounts of the petitioner or his firm cannot, by itself, establish that such funds constituted 'proceeds of crime' or that the petitioner knowingly participated in any activity connected with such proceeds. The petitioner submits that he has not been shown to have generated, concealed, possessed, acquired, used, projected or claimed any proceeds of crime as untainted property so as to attract Section 3 of the PMLA. 11. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that no incriminating material has been placed by the ED to es....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent is already within its custody and control, leaving no reasonable possibility of its destruction, alteration or tampering by the petitioner. There is also no allegation supported by any concrete instance that the petitioner has attempted to influence any witness or tamper with evidence. 16. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation that the petitioner was 'absconding' or 'non-cooperative' is misconceived. Although the ECIR was registered in November 2025, the search was conducted only on 18.05.2026, and no summons were issued to the petitioner or his wife during the intervening period. Summons to the petitioner were issued only after the search and arrest of his wife. The petitioner has consistently expressed his willingness to cooperate and, prior to the orders granting protection, had joined the investigation when directed and furnished the documents sought. As regards his alleged departure during the search, there is no CCTV footage, independent witness statement, recovery or other contemporaneous material to establish that he removed, concealed or destroyed any evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner had received serious threats t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the ED ought not to become an indirect means of frustrating the protection already granted by the constitutional courts. The summons issued by the ED under Section 50 of the PMLA are based on the very same money trail as alleged in the predicate offence, in respect of which the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail. 21. The present ECIR, according to the learned Senior Counsel, is merely another attempt to keep roping the petitioner into criminal proceedings arising out of the same transaction. It is submitted that the same transaction cannot be permitted to be repeatedly reopened by different agencies, in what has been described as an 'evergreening' of criminal proceedings. 22. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the present application for anticipatory bail is maintainable before this Court and that the High Court and the Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain an application for anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the complainant is not a necessary party in an application for anticipatory bail and that there is no statutory requirement for impleading the complainant as a party-respondent. The right of a victim to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pite repeated summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA. It is submitted that summons were issued to the Petitioner on 21.05.2026, 22.05.2026 and 26.05.2026; however, he failed to appear before the investigating agency. The Petitioner merely sent replies to the summons dated 21.05.2026 and 27.05.2026, which, according to the respondent, cannot be construed as compliance with the statutory requirement of personal appearance. 27. It is submitted that under Section 50 of the PMLA, a person summoned by the Enforcement Directorate is under a statutory obligation to appear, answer questions truthfully and produce the documents required for the investigation. Such obligation cannot be avoided on the ground that the person apprehends arrest or that proceedings in the predicate offence are pending. At the stage of issuance of summons under Section 50, the person summoned does not assume the status of an accused merely because an ECIR has been registered. 28. Learned Counsel further submits that the Petitioner's conduct in the predicate proceedings also demonstrates a consistent pattern of non-cooperation. Despite obtaining interim protection, the Petitioner allegedly failed to coope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olves serious allegations of money laundering and requires a detailed investigation into the trail of the alleged proceeds of crime. It is contended that the Petitioner's personal presence is necessary for effective collection of evidence, confrontation with documentary and digital material and eliciting information within his exclusive knowledge. In view of his continued non-cooperation, custodial interrogation is stated to be imperative for a meaningful and effective investigation, and grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would seriously impede the investigation. 33. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the power of arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA is hedged with sufficient statutory safeguards and cannot be termed arbitrary. It is submitted that Section 19 incorporates safeguards including the requirement of recording reasons to believe in writing, communication of the grounds of arrest to the accused, production before the jurisdictional Magistrate within twenty-four hours and forwarding the material forming the basis of arrest to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed cover. The statutory scheme, therefore, adequately protects the rights of the accused whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n v. Directorate of Enforcement, Bail Application No. 795/2024, decided on 11.03.2024, against which SLP (Crl.) No. 4837/2024 was preferred and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 15.04.2024, declined to interfere with the denial of anticipatory bail and directed compliance with the summons; Shri Amrit Pal Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025:DHC:5118; and Bhambhia Noghanji & Ors. v. State of Kutch, 1954 SCC OnLine Kutch 13. 39. Reliance is placed upon Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929; P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24; Enforcement Directorate v. Dr. V.C. Mohan, Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2022; Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy, 2022 SCC OnLine SC; Union of India v. Varinder Singh, (2018) 15 SCC 248; Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46; and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026:DHC:813; Dr. Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1465 and Directorate of Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 619. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT 40. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainants/victims opposes the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the judgments relied upon by them, and has perused the material placed on record. 47. At the stage of bail, the Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial, but to assess whether there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is guilty of the offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail, as contemplated under Section 45 of the PMLA. These twin conditions, though stringent, are not insurmountable and must be applied on the basis of the material available, tested against settled principles governing personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 48. In this connection, in Vijay Madanlal (supra), the following has been observed: "303. We are in agreement with the observation made by the Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma [Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1057]. 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. The court will not weigh the evidence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assistant Public Prosecutor invoking the powers of the Court under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are of the opinion that the application should have been granted in the facts and circumstances of the case with the end in view to do full and true justice. The application made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is therefore granted. The High Court will issue appropriate directions for the recording of the evidence to prove the report of the Mint Master under Section 391 CrPC when the matter goes back to the High Court and is listed for directions. The appeal is therefore allowed. The order of acquittal is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court for proceeding further in accordance with law in the light of the above said directions." 51. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Supreme Court noted that economic offences constitute a separate class and a different approach needs to be adopted while considering the issue of grant of bail. The rationale being that such offences, inter alia, involve a huge loss of public funds: "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to exclude the operation of Section 45 of the 2002 Act in the case of anticipatory bail, otherwise, it will create an unnecessary dichotomy between bail and anticipatory bail which not only will be irrational but also discriminatory and arbitrary. Thus, it is totally misconceived that the rigours of Section 45 of the 2002 Act will not apply in the case of anticipatory bail" 53. The relevant extract of Section 45 of the PMLA reads as under: 45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable." (1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence [under this Act] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless"] (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given a opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 54. Firstly, in the present case, the principal contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that he has been granted interim pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ike concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so, would constitute the offence of money laundering Under Section 3 of the Act." 57. Thirdly, in the facts of present case, the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA are not being considered in isolation and sufficiently corroborated along with bank account analysis and the financial trail placed on record by the Directorate of Enforcement which prima facie show the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. 58. The transaction trail, when examined cumulatively, reveals that the funds emanating from the accounts of M/s MG Leasing & Finance, Mohit Gogia and other connected persons were routed through multiple intermediary accounts before reaching the petitioner. The material placed on record, at this stage, traces proceeds of crime amounting to approximately Rs.26.18 crores to the petitioner. The relevant charts forming part of the counter-affidavit are reproduced hereinbelow: 59. Furthermore, there is also a specific trail of funds connecting the alleged proceeds of crime with the petitioner. It is stated that M/s MG Leasing an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deed, sub-section (2) of Section 50 enables the Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. We have already highlighted the width of expression "proceeding" in the earlier part of this judgment and held that it applies to proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court, as the case may be. Nevertheless, sub-section (2) empowers the authorised officials to issue summon to any person. We fail to understand as to how Article 20(3) would come into play in respect of process of recording statement pursuant to such summon which is only for the purpose of collecting information or evidence in respect of proceeding under this Act. Indeed, the person so summoned, is bound to attend in person or through authorised agent and to state truth upon any subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the 2002 Act. The criticism is essentially....