PMLA | Not Mandatory For Court To Conclude That Accused Is Innocent Before Granting Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that for the purpose of granting bail to an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), it is not a mandatory requirement that the Court must arrive at a finding that the petitioner had not committed any offence under the PMLA.

Justice N.S. Shekhawat said, "Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the restrictions, while considering the matter of bail, are required to be construed reasonably. If the Court comes to the conclusion that after considering the material collected against the petitioner, in all probabilities, the accused may not be convicted ultimately by the trial Court; an order of grant of bail may be passed. Still further, conversely, it is not a mandatory requirement that the Court must arrive at a positive finding that the petitioner had not committed an offence under the PMLA."

The Court was hearing an anticipatory bail plea of an accused in a case under Sections 3, 4 of the PMLA filed by the Directorate of Enforcement. The Vigilance Bureau had registered FIR under Sections 379, 414, 480 IPC & 4, 21 of Mines And Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1987 & 13(2), 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The predicate offence against the petitioner, Gurpreet Singh Sabharwal was illegal mining. On the one hand, the ED and Vigilance Bureau had alleged that the firm of the petitioner had extracted the material from the mine beyond the permissible limits and had caused loss to the State exchequer to the tune of Rs. 35 crores whereas, on the other hand, the petitioner submitted that there was no irregularity or illegality committed in the mining operation.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that as per Section 65 of the PMLA, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation, investigation, prosecution and all other proceedings under this Act.

The ED claimed that the investigation in the present case is continuing and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required and had also mentioned certain documents in the affidavit filed on behalf of the ED, however, at this juncture, the Court noted that, "the investigation in the present case had progressed to a substantial extent and in the opinion of the Court, the petitioner has already supplied the required documents and has answered to all the queries raised by the ED."

"Even, this Court had seen the record of the present case and the custodial interrogation several years after the institution of the case does not stand to any legal reason and justification. Even, the documentary evidence has already been collected by the ED and there is no material to suggest that the petitioner is in a position to influence the witnesses of the prosecution or may abscond from the process of law or may hamper the investigation in any manner," it added.

The Court found that it is a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and accordingly, directed that the petitioner may be released on bail, in the event of his arrest by the officials of the respondent-ED.

Mr. Vikram Chaudhari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate

Ms. Hargun Sandhu, Advocate and Ms. Diya Bhagwan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Ms. Megna Malik, Advocate and Ms. Sushmita Srivastava, Advocate, for the respondent.

Title: Gurpreet Singh Sabharwal v. Directorate of Enforcement

Click here to read/download the order