Summary
The Court set aside bail granted in a money-laundering investigation because the High Court had not applied section 45 or considered the serious allegations and continuing ED investigation. Filing a charge-sheet in the predicate case did not establish completion of the distinct money-laundering investigation. Both accused were directed to surrender within one week, after which the High Court was to consider their bail applications afresh.
Issues
- Whether bail could stand when the High Court had not considered section 45 and the continuing money-laundering investigation.
- Whether a predicate-offence charge-sheet or the discharge or acquittal of other accused justified the bail orders.
- What relief and surrender directions followed from the defective consideration of bail.
Provisions considered
- Section 45(1) and (2), Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002The High Court had to consider the statutory restrictions, including opportunity to the Public Prosecutor and, on opposition, the required reasonable-ground findings. Those restrictions operate in addition to ordinary bail limitations; the challenged orders had not considered their rigour. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 6.3, 7, 8)
Held
- The High Court failed to consider section 45, the nature and seriousness of the money-laundering allegations and the fact that the ED investigation continued. These omissions made the grants of bail unsustainable and required fresh consideration rather than a final determination of the accused persons’ entitlement to bail. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 7, 8)
- Investigation into predicate offences and the ED investigation under the PMLA are distinct. A charge-sheet in the former did not demonstrate that the latter was complete and could not, by itself, justify bail in the money-laundering proceedings. (¶¶ 6.3, 7)
- The contention that these respondents were not named in the original predicate FIR, or that other accused had been discharged or acquitted, did not preclude the continuing investigation against these respondents on the facts before the Court. The decision did not determine guilt or hold that money-laundering proceedings survive every possible termination of the underlying predicate case. (¶¶ 6.2, 7, 8)
- Both appeals were allowed, the bail orders set aside and the respondents directed to surrender before the competent court or jail authority within one week. The High Court was to hear their bail applications afresh after surrender, applying the stated considerations. (¶ 8)
Result
Appeals allowed; bail orders set aside. Respondents to surrender within one week; High Court to consider their bail applications afresh after surrender.