Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The present first bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed in relation to Crime No.ECIR/01/NGR/2011 dated 10.01.2011 renumbered as ECIR/RPSZO/05/2013 and its subsequent addendum dated 10.02.2020, registered at Police Station - Enforcement Directorate, Sub-Zonal Office-Nagpur for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'the PMLA Act').

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that according to the proviso appended to Section 45 of the PMLA Act, the applicant being a lady and suffering from various ailments is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. He would further submit that in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 43 has held that in a case where the prosecution does not require custody of the accused, there is no need for arrest when a case is sent to the magistrate under Section 170 of the Code. It is also observed that there is no need for filing a bail application as the case is merely forwarded to the court for the framing of charges and issuance of process for trial. He would further contend that in the present case, though the FIR was registered on 19.2.2010, the applicant was never directed to appear before the investigating agency and the same is evident from the notice dated 05.10.2020 which clearly says that in view of the medical condition as already intimated vide reply dated 13.9.2020 against the earlier summons, the applicant was permitted to represent through authorized person. He would also contend that during these long 11 years, the applicant was never directed to appear before the investigating agency, therefore at this stage, it would not be appropriate to direct her to surrender. He would further submit that in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorized the offences into four categories i.e. A, B, C & D. Category C deals with the offences punishable under Special Act containing stringent provisions for bail such as PMLA, NDPS etc. He would submit that the applicant being a woman, her case should be considered in light of the provisions of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. It is further argued that in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the law enunciated would equally apply in anticipatory bail cases. He would also argue that the applicant has undergone kidney transplantation in the year 1999 and angioplasty in the year 2012. She is also suffering from accelerated hypertension, depression and anxiety. She is on lifelong immuno-suppressive and other supportive drugs and a certificate in this regard has been issued by the medical officer on 17.08.2023. Some medical prescriptions have been filed by the applicant to substantiate the contention. He would further argue that one more ECIR was registered against other co-accused persons. The anticipatory bail of those persons was rejected by the learned Sessions Court and thereafter, by this Court. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No.2106 of 2022 was kind enough to grant anticipatory bail to Pawan Kumar Agrawal and Ashok Kumar Agrawal. He would further submit that in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the accused persons, namely Vimal Agrawal and Vinod Agrawal have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1455 of 2021 vide order dated 09.02.2023. He would lastly contend that though different ECIRs were registered by the respondent, the sum and substance of the allegations are similar and thus, he would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and perused the documents present on the record.

7. From a perusal of the documents, it appears that a search was conducted by the Income-Tax Department on 04.02.2010 and 05.02.2010 in the premises of Babulal Agrawal, Sunil Kumar Agrawal (CA) and other relatives and 230 passbooks of different persons were recovered. On 19.02.2010, the Economic Offence Wing, Raipur registered an FIR bearing No. 6 of 2010 under Section 13(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 3 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. On 10.01.2011, ECIR/01/NGR/2011 was registered under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA Act 2002. On 14.05.2018, the main accused - Babulal Agrawal was exonerated on identical allegations by the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA on the ground that no case of money laundering had been made out against him based on the allegations imputed in the prosecution complaint filed by the investigating agency. The order of the Adjudicating Authority has been challenged before the Appellate Authority. On 10.02.2020, the respondent registered an FIR against Babulal Agrawal in the addendum ECIR. The summons was issued to the applicant and she was permitted to appear through the authorized representative. On 04.01.2021 i.e. after 10 years, the respondent filed a prosecution complaint arraying the applicant as accused. The main accused, namely Babulal Agrawal has been granted regular bail in MCRC No. 78 of 2021 vide order dated 10.02.2021 on the ground that he has been exonerated of the allegations by the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA. The order dated 10.02.2021 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 5661 of 2021 by the respondent and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2021.

10. It is not in dispute that the FIR was registered on 19.02.2010 whereas the respondent filed a complaint arraying the applicant as accused in ECIR on 04.01.2021 i.e. after 10 years. From the summons issued to the applicant, it is quite vivid that she was permitted to appear through an authorized person and it cannot be said that she did not cooperate in the investigation. According to the proviso appended to Section 45 of the PMLA Act, a woman suffering from certain ailments may be granted anticipatory bail. The decision cited by learned counsel for the respondent states the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA Act are to be satisfied but at the same time, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) cannot be lost sight of as the applicant is a lady suffering from various ailments and she cooperated in the investigation of the matter and other co-accused persons against whom similar allegations were made, have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court, therefore, in opinion of this Court, the present is a fit case to extend the benefit under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the applicant.