ROHIT TANDON Vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks regular bail under Sec. 439 Crimial P.C. in case ECIR/18/DZ-II/2016/AD (RV) registered under Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as 'PMLA'). Status report is on record.

(2.) I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Solicitor General and have examined the file.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner is in custody since 28.12.2016. He has joined the investigation on various dates. The petitioner a practicing lawyer for nearly 35 years belongs to a respectable family. It is urged that petitioner's arrest is premature as the offences under Sections 420/406/409/467/468/471/188/120-B Penal Code alleged in FIR No. 205/2016 PS Crime Branch have not been prima facie established; no charge-sheet till date has been filed and the investigation is still at preliminary stage. The petitioner was not named therein; he was never asked to join the investigation in the said proceedings. Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter referred as 'ED') can't conduct investigation before the Crime Branch concludes its investigation in the FIR No. 205/2016 as the 'scheduled offence' requires to be proved before attracting provisions of PMLA. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA are not attracted and an individual can be arraigned as an accused under PMLA only if 'scheduled offence' as defined in the PMLA is committed and the proceeds obtained from the criminal activity relating to such 'scheduled offence' is being laundered to make it legal or to take the benefit of the same. It is imperative for the investigating agency to ascertain that first the 'scheduled offences' are prima facie, proven or accepted to have been committed without any reasonable apprehension of doubt.