Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

231. The prosecution complaint running into 2430 number of pages. At the time of filing of the charge sheet, applicant was present before the learned Special Court. The application for grant of bail filed by the applicant has been rejected on 16.08.2018 and he has been taken into the judicial custody.

HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE Pg.No.2

4. This application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, for grant of bail has been filed by the applicant in special Sessions Trial No.1924/2018, for an offence under Section 45 read with Section 3 and 4 of the the Prevention of Money - Laundering Act, 2002 (herein after referred as 'PMLA Act').

10. The PMLA cases is only an off-shoot of the main case from which alleged proceeds of crime has been driven and allegedly projected as untainted. The applicant is on bail in all the said Scheduled offences (ten cases). The maximum punishment in PMLA offence is seven years and, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/s. State of Bihar & Anr. reported as 2014 (8) SCC 469, it is prayed that the applicant is entitled for grant of bail.

11. Per contra, Shri Deepak Rawal, learned ASG for the non-applicant (Directorate of Enforcement), opposes the prayer on the ground that the offence is grave in nature. He has also drawn my attention to the amended HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE Pg.No.6 provisions of PMLA Act and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah (supra) strike down Section 45 of the PMLA Act, 2002, so far as it imposes further two conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional is concerned, the same relates to Scheduled offences or predicate offences. He submitted that now the Government has brought an amendment in the Finance Act, 2018, which has come into effect from 19.4.2018 to Section 45 (1) of the PMLA Act, thereby inserting words 'under this Act' in Section 45 (1) of the said Act. He submitted that in view of the said amendment, the original Sub-section (ii) of Section 45(1) which imposes the said twin conditions automatically stands revived and the said condition therefore, remained on statute book. He submitted that in view of the amendment in Section 45(1) PMLA Act, which came into effect from 19.4.2018, the original Section 45(1) (ii) has to be inferred and treated as it still exists on the statute books and hold the field even as of today for deciding the application for bail by an accused under PMLA Act and the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah (supra) has become ineffective and, therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant has to be considered in view of the amended provision of Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act. He lastly submitted that looking to the prima facie evidence available against the applicant, he is not entitled for grant of bail and prayed for rejection of the bail application.

13. It is to be noted here that, after effecting amendment to Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act the words "under this Act" are added to Sub Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA Act. However, the original Section 45(1)

(ii) has not been revived or resurrected by the said Amending Act. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned ASG are not disputing about the said fact situation and in fact have conceded to the same. It is further to be noted here that, even Notification dated 29.3.2018 thereby amending Section 45(1) of PMLA Act which came into effect from 19.4.2018, is silent about its retrospective applicability.

14. In view of thereof, the contention advanced by the learned ASG cannot be accepted. It is to be further noted here that, the original Sub-section 45(1) (ii) has therefore neither revived nor resurrected by the Amending Act and, therefore, as of today there is no rigor of said two further conditions under original Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA Act for releasing the accused on bail under the said Act.

15. The applicant is 62 years of age and is an MBBS HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE Pg.No.8 doctor by profession and is practicing and having number of medical institutes. He is permanent resident of Indore and in all other cases of Scheduled offences in which he was enlarged on bail, he never misused the terms and conditions of the bail. There is no reason to presume that applicant would abscond or temper or influence the witnesses.