VILLAYUTHAM Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner / Accused No.1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13/3/2023 for the offences under Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2022, punishable under Sec. 4 of the said Act in ECIR MDSZO/13/2012, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on the strength of the case registered in Crime No.95 of 2021 on the file of the Jetty Police Station, Rameshwaram, Ramanathapuram District for the offences under Ss. 9,39 and 51 of Wild Protection Act, 1972, which are covered under paragraph No.6 of Part A of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 under Sec. 2(1) (x) and (y) of the PML Act, 2002, the petitioner appeared to have committed an offence of money laundering under Sec. 3 of the PML Act, 2002, which is punishable under Sec. 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Act, 2002. On the basis of the same, a case has been registered by the respondent in ECIR MDSZO/13/2021, dtd. 24/5/2021 as against the petitioner and others. The case of the prosecution in Crime No.95 of 2021 on the file of the Jetty Police Station, Rameshwaram, Ramanathapuram District is that the petitioner is said to have processed and smuggled 2800 Kgs of lifeless processed and unprocessed sea cucumbers worth about Rs.2.00 Crores.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in pursuance of the case registered in crime No.95 of 2021 offences under Ss. 9,39 and 51 of Wild Protection Act, 1972, which are covered under paragraph No.6 of Part A of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 under Sec. 2(1) (x) and (y) of the PML Act, 2002, this case has been registered in ECIR MDSZO/13/2021, on 24/5/2021 for the offence under Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, punishable under Sec. 4 of the said Act. He would further submit that the petitioner herein was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and further, now, the investigation in this case has been completed and final report was filed and hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. He further contended that the petitioner is suffering from following diseases: