PMLA | When Investigating Agency Didn't Arrest, But Trial Court Wants Judicial Custody On Filing ECIR There Must Be Reasons To Deny Bail: P&H High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that in Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cases when the investigating agency did not arrest, but the trial court wants judicial custody on filing the complaint, the Court must give reasons for denying bail.While granting anticipatory bail in a PMLA case, Justice Anoop Chitkara said, "When the Investigating agency did not arrest,...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that in Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cases when the investigating agency did not arrest, but the trial court wants judicial custody on filing the complaint, the Court must give reasons for denying bail.
While granting anticipatory bail in a PMLA case, Justice Anoop Chitkara said, "When the Investigating agency did not arrest, but the trial court wants judicial custody on filing the complaint [ECIR], there must be reasons to deny bail, which are non-existent (in the present case)."
The Court also observed that an offence under PMLA is comparable to the "tip of an iceberg" and that the proceeds of crime under the PMLA "must trace their roots to some predicate crime.
Gurinder Pal Singh had moved the High Court challenging the dismissal of the anticipatory bail, filed on issuance of summons, and later warrants by the trial court, in the complaint filed in the ECIR under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA.
An FIR was lodged under Sections 420, 506, 120-B IPC and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention Corruption Act by Punjab's Vigilance Bureau wherein it was alleged that one Surinder Pal Singh had worked as Executive Engineer, Superintendent Engineer and Chief Engineer and was posted at various offices of Punjab Mandi Board and Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) from 2012 to 2017.
Later, challan was filed under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B of IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988.
Petitioner Gurinder was allegedly the controlling proprietor of the entities which was favoured by Surinder Pal Singh in the allotment of various project works of GMADA. It was stated that Surinder Pal Singh had acquired undue benefits for himself and for the said entities.
Based on the predicate offence, the Enforcement Directorate made a complaint in July 2023 against 11 persons, including the petitioner, before the Additional Session Judge-Special Court, PMLA, Mohali and the Court took cognizance of the same and ordered to summon all the accused persons for January 19.
The petitioner apprehending arrest on appearance before the Court, filed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC which was dismissed by the Trial Court.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the offences under sections 120-B, 420, 467,471 of IPC, have been notified in the Part A of the Schedule and the offences under sections 13 (1)(d) read with 13 (2) of PC Act, also forms part of the schedule of PMLA Act.
Perusing the complaint, summoning and bail dismissal order, the Court pointed out that during the pendency of the investigation in the ECIR, the Enforcement Directorate investigator did not arrest the petitioner.
Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court's decision in Rajesh Kumar v. The Directorate of Enforcement [SLP (Crl.) No. 12803 of 2023], wherein the Court granted bail to an accused under the PMLA Act observing that during the investigation the Enforcement Directorate did not arrest him.
Consequently, the bench opined that it is not a case to deny anticipatory bail.
While granting the pre-arrest bail to the accused the Court imposed certain conditions and the plea was disposed of.
Advocates Harshit Sethi and Rahil Mahajan for the petitioner.
Promila Nain, Senior Panel Counsel-UOl and Harveen Mehta, Advocate for respondent-E.D.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 84
Title: Gurinder Pal Singh @ Tinku v. ED