Telangana High Court
Boodati Laxminarayana vs The Directorate Of Enforcement on 16 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2530 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the petitioner seeking bail in ECIR/HYZO/42/2022 on the file of the Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad.
2. The instant case originates from Crime No.158 of 2022 registered on 01.08.2022 at the Central Crime Station Police Station, Hyderabad, against M/s. Sahiti Infratech Venture India Private Limited, its Managing Director i.e., the petitioner herein, and others, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 (hereinafter referred to, as 'IPC'). The said crime was instituted basing on a complaint lodged by Mr. M. Yashwanth Kumar, who purported to be a home buyer. Subsequent to the registration of crime, the provisions of Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 3 and 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to, as 'TPDFE Act') were incorporated 2 into the case. The petitioner made as accused No.1 in the aforementioned crime.
3. Heard Sri D.V Seetharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Pratheek Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri D. Narender Naik, learned Standing Counsel for Directorate of Enforcement appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that basing on the complaint lodged by one M. Yashwanth Kumar, Crime No.158 of 2022 was registered by the Central Crime Station, Detective Department, Hyderabad, against M/s. Sahiti Infratec Ventures India Private Limited (for short, 'the Company'), Managing Director of the Company i.e., petitioner herein and others, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to, as 'IPC') and subsequently, Sections 120-B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the TPDFE Act were added. Thereafter, on 11.08.2022, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred to, as 'PMLA'), an Enforcement Case Information Report was registered, vide ECIR/HYZO/42/2022 for the offences under Sections 3 and 3 4 of the PMLA against the Company, petitioner and others. On 12.08.2022, the Police, Central Crime Station, D.D., Hyderabad, conducted a search and seized all the documents pertaining to the details of the projects undertaken by the Company. Basing on the other similar complaints made in the various police stations, First Information Reports were filed against the Company, the petitioner and others. The respondent issued summons to the petitioner and his statements were recorded on 31.10.2022, 01.11.2022 and 02.11.2022. The petitioner was arrested by the Police of Central Crime Station, D.D., Hyderabad, in respect of Crime No.158 of 2022 on 01.12.2022 and he was in judicial custody till 31.01.2023. Thereafter, on 01.04.2023, the respondent conducted another search in the Company office as well as the residence of certain persons under Section 17(1A) of the PMLA and seized the material and also collected the documents pertaining to the case from the Central Crime Station, D.D., Hyderabad. The respondent also seized the bank accounts belonging to the Company, the petitioner and also other directors of the Company. On 20.12.2023, the provisional attachment was issued under Section 5 of the 4 PMLA attaching movable and immovable properties worth of Rs.161.50 Crores belongs to the Company, the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner was arrested on 29.09.2024 in connection with ECIR/HYZO/42/2022 dated 11.08.2022 and he has been in judicial custody since 30.09.2024.
4.1. He further submitted that the statements of the petitioner were recorded and the entire material was seized along with the bank accounts of the Company as well as the petitioner and other family members. The petitioner's passport was also seized. Hence, the possibility of tampering with evidence and also influencing the witnesses does not arise.
4.2. Even according to the complaint of the respondent, the investigation is under progress, due to which, the final report has not been filed within the statutory period. As per the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to, as 'Cr.P.C.'), if the final report is not filed within the stipulated time, the petitioner is entitled for grant of statutory bail. 5 4.3. He further submitted that the petitioner or his Company is currently not engaging in any business operations and there is no scope of resuming the operations in the near future. Hence, there is no requirement of continuing incarceration of the petitioner. 4.4. According to the prosecution, the investigation with respect to the petitioner herein has been completed. Even as per the counter-affidavit of the respondent, the purported justification for the continued incarceration of the petitioner would show that the respondent is effectively trying to split up the investigation to the detriment of the liberty of the petitioner and the same is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4.5. He further submitted that the respondent filed an application vide Crl.M.P.No.906 of 2025 in S.C.No.888 of 2024 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, invoking the provision of Section 50 of the PMLA seeking permission to record the statement of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody, and the said application was allowed on 05.03.2025 permitting the respondent/Investigating Officers to examine and record the 6 statement of the petitioner for two (2) days before the prison authorities i.e., Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. Hence, there is no requirement of further investigation. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with further investigation, if any, and all subsequent proceedings, and he is entitled for grant of bail.
4.6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments reads as follows:
1. C. Parthasarthy v. Director of Enforcement 1,
2. V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2,
3. Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement 3,
4. Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement 4,
5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has committed grave offence and received huge amount of more than 800 Crores from the innocent persons for the purpose of construction of world class residential gated community comprising of 32 floors and 10 1 (2022) 2 ALD (Cri.) 404 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 3 (2024) 9 SCC 787 4 (2025) 2 SCC 248 7 towers in an extent of approximately 23 acres in Sy.Nos.343/8, 343/9, 343/11, 343/12 and 343/13 of Ameenpur Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District. However, the Company failed to acquire the necessary land and obtain various permissions required from the concerned authorities for construction.
Thus, the Company had failed to deliver the flats or refunded the amount to the customers and defrauded them for their hard-earned money.
5.1. He further submitted that basing on the complaint lodged by one Mr. Yashwanth Kumar, Crime No.158 of 2022 was registered and subsequently, 56 F.I.Rs. were registered against the Company, petitioner and others, wherein hundreds of buyers/complainants of different projects undertaken by the Company and other group firms and companies were defrauded of a cumulative amount of more than Rs.300 Crores under the pretext of delivery of flats/villas, but failed to do so. As per the provisions of Section 3 of the PMLA and Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are applicable to the petitioner and as per the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
5.2. He also submitted that on 14.10.2022, the Investigating Officers issued summons for recording the statement of the 8 petitioner under Section 50(2) and (3) of the PMLA and on 31.10.2022, 01.11.2022 and 02.11.2022, during the course of recording the statement of the petitioner, undertook to submit information and documents as sought by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner is a very influential person. When the petitioner was E.D. custody on 17.10.2024, the petitioner was found in illegal possession of one mobile phone, without obtaining any permission from the Court or the custodian. Accordingly, the mobile phone possessed by the petitioner was impounded under Section 50(5) of the PMLA, through the Impounding Order dated 17.10.2024. However, instead of appearing before the Investigating Officer to submit requisite information, the petitioner submitted a fake medical certificate on 18.11.2022. The Investigating Officers have given number of opportunities through summons dated 05.04.2023, 12.05.2023, 26.05.2023, 17.08.2023 and 10.09.2024, but he remained evasive and failed to appear before the Investigating Officer and not produced the requisite information. When the respondent/Investigating Officers enquired about the medical certificate produced by the petitioner through the concerned Medical Officer, who categorically denied and stated that he has not treated the petitioner and not issued the medical certificate, which was produced by the petitioner, and the said medical 9 certificate was a forged and fabricated one and the petitioner is absconding.
5.3. Similarly, the petitioner's family members, namely his son Boodati Satwik and his wife Parvathi, were also summoned on multiple occasions. However, they appeared on one occasion on 05.06.2023 and recorded their statements under Section 50 of the PMLA. During the course of investigation, most of the questions posed by the Investigating Officers, they remained evasive and undertook to submit documents and information within three days. However, they failed to provide the requisite documents and information and subsequently remained absconding.
5.4. He further submitted that the petitioner has collected huge amount of Rs.800 Crores, however, the attachment of proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs.161.50 Crores has been done so far and the actual quantum of fraud committed by the petitioner is much bigger than the attachment and further investigation to quantify the remaining proceeds of crime and to attach the same is under progress. The investigation conducted by the respondent has revealed the details of additional proceeds of crime concealed by the petitioner, despite in the judicial custody.
105.5. He further submitted that subsequent to filing of the prosecution complaint on 05.11.2024, the investigation conducted by the respondent has revealed that the petitioner continues to be involved in activities related to proceeds of crime. Though the petitioner is in judicial custody, acting on his instructions, the proceeds of crime were transferred to the bank account of his daughter-in-law, who subsequently withdrew the proceeds of crime in cash and handed it to a person of the petitioner. The investigation established that the petitioner, despite being in judicial custody, actively engaged in laundering the proceeds of the crime. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, if he is granted bail, he will dissipate the laundered proceeds of crime.
5.6. He further submitted that the son of the petitioner, namely Boodati Sathwik, approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.13817 of 2024 for grant of anticipatory bail in the above said crime. This Court on 13.12.2024 dismissed the said application by giving cogent reasons. In spite of issuing summons, the petitioner and his wife as well as his son are not cooperating with the investigation and they are absconding. 5.7. He further submitted that the respondent filed the complaint within the statutory period of limitation as per the 11 provisions of the PMLA. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of statutory bail and the judgment, which was relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in C. Parthasarthy supra is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
5.8. He further submitted that as per the provisions of sub- section (ii) of Section 45(1) of the PMLA, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail basing upon his conduct and the petitioner has committed grave offence and collected huge amount from the innocent persons to a tune of Rs.800 Crores and the same amounts to money laundering as per the provisions of the PMLA and the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
5.9. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Union of India, through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad 5.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that on 01.08.2022, one Mr. M. Yashwanth Kumar lodged a complaint against the M/s. Sahiti Infratec 5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 306 12 Ventures India Private Limited, the petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the said Company, and others, and the Central Crime Station, Detective Department, Hyderabad, registered the case for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and subsequently, Sections 120-B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, were added. The Company advertised a pre-launch offer in social media for construction of world class residential gated community comprising of 32 floors and 10 towers in an extent of approximately 23 acres in Sy.Nos.343/8, 343/9, 343/11, 343/12 and 343/13 of Ameenpur Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District. Pursuant to the same, the complainant as well as 240 other customers paid an amount of Rs.72,81,98,000/- to the Company. However, the Company failed to acquire the necessary land and obtain various permissions required from the concerned authorities and thus the Company had failed to deliver the flats to the customers and also failed to refund the money and cheated them for their hard earned money. The record further reveals that against the above said Company as well as the petitioner and others, more than 56 cases were registered. Subsequently, the respondent initiated proceedings exercising the powers conferred under the 13 provisions of the PMLA and conducted investigation on the complaint dated 11.08.2022 and the same was registered as ECIR/HYZO/42/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA against the Company, the petitioner and other persons. The record further reveals that during the course of investigation, on 12.08.2022, the Investigating Officers seized the documents from the office of the Company and also recorded the statements of the petitioner on 31.10.2022, 01.11.2022 and 02.11.2022. During the course of investigation, the respondent came to know that the petitioner has collected huge amount ie., more than 800 Crores, under the guise of construction of residential gated community, however, they attached only Rs.161.50 Crores of proceeds of crime. The petitioner has not cooperating with the investigation. The record further reveals that the Investigating Officers have issued summons on 05.04.2023, 12.05.2023, 26.05.2023, 17.08.2023 and 10.09.2024 to appear before them and submit requisite information/documents, however, the petitioner produced the medical certificate through e-mail dated 18.11.2022 issued by the Doctor and sought time. When the Investigating Officers enquired the Doctor, who specifically stated that he has not treated the petitioner and has not issued the said medical certificate. According to the Investigating 14 Officers, the medical certificate produced by the petitioner is a forged and fabricated one.
7. The record further reveals that the son of the petitioner was made an accused No.5 in the said crime. The Investigating Officers have issued summons to the wife and son of the petitioner to appear before them for recording their statements as well as the production of the document, however, they appeared only on one occasion i.e., on 05.06.2023, and subsequently, according to the Investigating Officer, they are not cooperating with the investigation and absconded.
8. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the investigation is not completed and they have not filed final report within the stipulated time and as per the provisions of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of grant of statutory bail is concerned, the record reveals that the Investigating Officers after completing investigation filed complaint in ECIR/HYZO/42/2022 on 05.11.2024 before the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the same was taken cognizance on 04.12.2024 and numbered as S.C.No.888 of 2024. Even according to the parties, the matter is coming up for framing of charges. Hence, this Court is of the considered 15 view that the petitioner is not entitled to seek benefit under the provisions of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. for grant of statutory bail.
9. It is relevant to extract the provision of Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.--
(1) xxx xxx xxx (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:
Provided that--
(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,--
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;16
(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage;
(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police.
Explanation I.--For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in Para
(a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail. Explanation II.--If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under clause (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be.
Provided further that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorised to be in the custody of a remand home or recognised social institution."
10. Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. was introduced in the year 1978, giving emphasis to the maximum period of time to complete the investigation. This provision has got a laudable object behind it, which is to ensure an expeditious investigation and a fair trial, and to set down a rationalised procedure that protects the interests of the indigent sections of society. This is also another limb of Article 21, agency has to expedite the process of 17 investigation as a suspect is languishing under incarceration. Thus, a duty is enjoined upon the agency to complete the investigation within the time prescribed and a failure would enable the release of the accused. The right enshrined is an absolute and indefeasible one, ensuring to the benefit of suspect.
11. It is already stated supra that the respondent after conducting investigation had filed complaint on 05.11.2024 before Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the same was taken cognizance on 04.12.2024 and numbered as S.C.No.888 of 2024 and the case is posted for framing of charges. Hence, this Court of considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C, for grant of statutory bail.
12. In C. Parthasarthy supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an accused is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed time limit of 60 days for offences not punishable by death or life imprisonment. The court emphasized that the filing of an incomplete charge sheet or complaint does not negate this right if the investigation remains unfinished. The case stated that the 18 essential balance between the rights of the accused and the duties of investigative authorities, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty. It highlights the obligation of these authorities to complete investigations within a reasonable timeframe, ensuring that personal liberty is not unjustly compromised.
12.1. In V. Senthil Balaji supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held an accused is entitled to bail if the trial is expected to extend beyond a reasonable timeframe, particularly when the period of incarceration has exceeded a significant portion of the potential sentence, thereby safeguarding the right to a speedy trial. The appellant, in this case had been detained for over 15 months under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and argued that the complexity of the case, involving multiple accused and witnesses, indicated that the trial could take several years. Although the Enforcement Directorate raised concerns about potential evidence tampering due to Balaji's influential position, the court found that the trials for both the scheduled offences and the PMLA charge would not conclude in a reasonable time, violating his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the court granted bail with specific conditions, emphasizing the necessity of 19 timely judicial processes and the obligation to prevent prolonged detention without trial.
12.2. In Prem Prakash supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the conditions for granting bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). imposes certain restrictions on bail, it does not create an absolute bar. The key principle is that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," in line with Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to personal liberty. The court emphasized that prolonged detention without trial infringes on the right to a speedy trial, especially when the accused has been in custody for a significant time with no imminent resolution of the case. Additionally, allegations of misuse of jail facilities should be addressed by the appropriate authorities but should not be the sole reason for denying bail.
12.3. In Arvind Kejriwal supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) can be filed at any stage of the proceedings, irrespective of whether a complaint has been lodged or charges framed, emphasizing that the right to bail is not contingent on the stage of the case. The court further held that the necessity for arrest under Section 19(1) of the PMLA 20 must be justified beyond mere compliance with formal parameters, aligning with the principles of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Additionally, the court introduced the proportionality test, which requires a careful balance between individual rights and public interest, assessing the legitimacy of the aim, rational connection, availability of less restrictive alternatives, and overall balance. The right to bail is upheld while considering the necessity of arrest and the protection of fundamental rights.
13. The judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to facts and circumstances of this case on the ground that the provisions of the PMLA specifically prohibits money laundering, a serious threat to national financial integrity.
14. In the present case, while the petitioner is in Directorate of Enforcement custody, on 17.10.2024, the respondent was found in illegal possession of one mobile phone without permission from the Court or custodian. The respondent by invoking the provisions of Section 50 (5) of the PMLA, impounded the said mobile phone through order dated 17.10.2024.
21
15. On a perusal of the record, the actual quantum of fraud committed by the petitioner is much bigger than the attachment and further investigation to quantify the remaining proceeds of crime to attach the same is under progress to that extent. The said averment was not denied by the petitioner and even as per the provisions of Section 5 of the PMLA, the investigation is essential to trace and attach the remaining proceeds of the crime.
16. It is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA Act, which reads as follows:
"45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.
(1)[Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence [under this Act] [Substituted by Act 20 of 2005, Section 7, for certain words (w.e.f. 1.7.2005).] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless]
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail:
Provided that a person, who is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm [or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees] [Inserted by Finance Act, 2018 (Act No. 13 of 2018) dated 29.3.2018.], may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs:22
Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by
(i) the Director; or
(ii) any officer of the Central Government or State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or a special order made in this behalf by that Government.
[(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed;] [Inserted by Act 20 of 2005, Section 7 (w.e.f. 1.7.2005).] (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in [***] [The words "clause (b)" omitted by Act 20 of 2005, Section 7 (w.e.f. 1.7.2005).] of sub-section (1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."
17. The above said provision clearly reveals that there is specific bar to grant bail subject to certain conditions. If the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds that he is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit the offence while on bail.
18. In Kanhaiya Prasad supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) aims to prevent money laundering, a serious offense that threatens the nation's financial integrity and sovereignty. It is mentioned in Section 45 of the PMLA, which has an overriding effect on 23 the Code of Criminal Procedure Cr.P.C, imposes two mandatory conditions for granting bail to individuals accused of offenses punishable by more than three years of imprisonment and the prosecutor must be allowed to oppose the bail application, and the court must find reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend. In this case, the High Court granted bail in a casual manner without adhering to these requirements, failing to establish any reasonable grounds for the respondent's innocence or likelihood of reoffending, rendering the bail order unsustainable and untenable in law. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, reinforcing the need for thorough judicial scrutiny in cases involving money laundering.
19. It is very much relevant to place on record that in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in connection with serious allegations of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), has been enacted to deal with the subject of money laundering activities which poses a significant threat to the nation's financial integrity and sovereignty of the countries. It highlighted the mandatory conditions under Section 45 of the 6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 764 24 PMLA for granting bail, which require the prosecutor to be given an opportunity to oppose bail and the court to find reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend. Any casual or cursory approach by the Courts while considering the bail application of the offender involved in the offence of money laundering and granting bail by passing cryptic orders without considering the seriousness of the crime and without considering the rigours of Section 45, cannot be justified. In the present case, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had granted bail in a casual manner without adhering to these requirements, failing to establish any reasonable grounds for the respondent's innocence or likelihood of reoffending. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, remanding the matter for fresh consideration while underscoring the serious nature of money laundering offenses and the need for stringent judicial scrutiny in such cases. The respondent was ordered to surrender before the Special Court within a week.
20. The respondent specifically averred in the counter- affidavit that when the petitioner is in judicial custody, the proceeds of crime was transferred to the account of the daughter-in-law of the petitioner and subsequently, she 25 withdrew the proceeds of crime in cash and handed it the person of the petitioner.
21. It is already stated supra as per the Investigating Officers, the medical certificate produced by the petitioner is a forged and fabricated one and while the petitioner was in judicial custody, on 17.10.2024, he possessed a mobile phone, without obtaining any permission from the Court or the custodian. The above said conduct of the petitioner clearly reveals that if the petitioner released on bail, he will interfere with the investigation, which is going to be conducted by the Investigating Officer to quantify the remaining proceeds of crime and to attach the said amount, and he also likely to commit offences. Hence, as per Section 45 of the PMLA and basing on the said conduct, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail at this stage, especially according to the Investigating Officers they have attached the proceeds of crime only to a tune of Rs.161.50 Crores and further investigation to quantify the remaining proceeds of crime and attach the same is under progress.
22. It is relevant to extract the explanation (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the PMLA.
26
"44. Offences triable by Special Courts.
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(i) xxx xxx xxx
(ii) the complaint shall be deemed to include any subsequent complaint in respect of further investigation that may be conducted to bring any further evidence, oral or documentary, against any accused person involved in respect of the offence, for which complaint has already been filed, whether named in the original complaint or not".
23. Thus, the above said provisions clearly reveal that even subsequent to filing of the complaint also, the Investigating Officers are entitled to conduct further investigation to bring further oral and documentary evidence against any accused person in respect of the offence.
24. It is already stated supra that the specific claim of the respondent is that the petitioner has collected the huge amount of proceeds of crime of more than Rs.800 Crores and they attached proceeds of crime only to a tune of Rs.161.50 Crores and further investigation to quantify the remaining proceeds of crime and to attach the same is under progress.
25. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
27
26. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 16.04.2025
mar