MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Grant of Bail in Money Laundering Case, Orders Fresh Consideration

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 12 May 12, 2023, Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, has set aside the grant of bail by the High Court of Telangana in a case involving offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act, 2002). The apex court directed the High Court to reconsider the bail applications in light of the observations made.

The case pertains to an FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal, which implicated several individuals and companies in offences punishable under various sections, including Sections 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 7(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR revealed alleged tampering with eTenders to secure favorable bids for certain projects of the Madhya Pradesh Water Corporation, amounting to a staggering Rs. 1769.00 crores.

The Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, initiated a money laundering investigation, pursuant to the offences charged in the FIR. The respondent, Aditya Tripathi, one of the accused, had filed a bail application before the High Court. The High Court allowed the bail applications, stating that the investigation was completed and chargesheets had been filed.

However, the Directorate of Enforcement, the appellant, approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had failed to consider the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, which pertains to the release on bail in money laundering cases. The appellant contended that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate was still ongoing, and the seriousness of the scheduled offences under the PML Act had not been adequately considered.

The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, held that the High Court had indeed erred in not properly considering the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act and the nature of the allegations. The Court emphasized that the investigation for scheduled offences under the PML Act was distinct from the investigation for the predicated offences. Merely filing chargesheets for the predicated offences could not be a valid ground for granting bail in connection with the scheduled offences under the PML Act.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision to grant bail and ordered a fresh consideration of the bail applications. The Court instructed the respondent to surrender before the competent court or the concerned jail authority within one week from the date of the judgment. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for reevaluation in light of the Court's observations.

This judgment by the Supreme Court reaffirms the stringent provisions of the PML Act and highlights the importance of thorough investigations into money laundering offences. It serves as a reminder that the seriousness of such offences must be taken into account when considering bail applications, and investigations should continue independently of chargesheets filed for other related offences.

12 May 12, 2023

Directorate of Enforcement vs Aditya Tripathi                                          

Latest Legal News