PMLA | Accused Not Entitled To Bail In Money Laundering Case Merely Because Chargesheet Has Been Filed In Predicate Offence : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the mere fact that chargesheet has been filed for the predicate offences is not a ground to release the accused on bail in connection with the offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar allowed an appeal filed by the Directorate of Enforcement challenging the order passed by the Telangana High Court granting bail to an accused in a money laundering case. The money laundering case was predicated on a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 registered in Madhya Pradesh in connection with awarding tender works of the MP Water Corporation. 

The ED argued that the High Court erred in granting bail on the ground that chargesheet has been filed in the corruption case. This argument was accepted by the Supreme Court, which opined that the High Court has not taken in consideration the rigours of Section 45 of PMLA. The Top Court also said that the fact that other accused are discharged or acquitted rom the predicate offences is not a ground to grant bail to the respondent.

The bench further observed :

"it appears that what is weighed with the High Court is that chargesheet has been filed against respective respondent No. 1 – accused and therefore, the investigation is completed. However, the High. Court has failed to notice and appreciate that. the investigation with respect to the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 by the Enforcement Directorate is still going on.

Merely because, for the predicated offences the chargesheet might have been filed it cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail in connection with the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2000".

Setting aside the bail granted to respondent no.1, the Court directed him to surrender before the concerned jail authority within a week.

Case Title : Directorate of Enforcement vs Aditya Tripathi

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 433

Click here to read the judgment