PUSHPENDRA SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the first bail application filed by applicant under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. (Now Sec. 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023) for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/ECIR No. ECIR/AMZO/17/2020, registered at Directorate of Enforcement, Bhopal, District Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence under Ss. 3, 4 and 70 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

(2.) As per prosecution story, FIR was registered on 7/4/2017 by Central Bureau Investigation, on the basis of complainant made by one Surendranath Sahoo, Deputy General Manager of Canara Bank. Case was registered against K.D. Dubey, Branch Manager, Canara Bank, SME Branch, Jabalpur and M/s Jagdamba AMW Automatives Pvt. Ltd. (JAAPL) and other Directors. It is alleged that there was wrongful sanction of 50 loans. Loan amount was availed but vehicles were not delivered to the borrowers and money was used elsewhere by accused persons. Allegations are made that an amount about Rs.14.93 crores public money of bank was misappropriated by cheating and forgery. Applicant was granted anticipatory bail on 7/7/2020 in M.Cr.C. No.6644/2020. Thereafter applicant co-operated in investigation. Charge sheet was filed on 18/12/2019 and six persons were charge sheeted. Later on, Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter referred to as 'ED') took over the investigation in respect of offences under Ss. 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (in short as 'PMLA, Act'), 2002. ED filed complaint on 13/3/2024.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for applicant prays for grant of bail on the ground that mandatory provisions of PMLA, 2002 is not followed by ED. It is submitted that there is non-compliance of Sec. 19 of PMLA, 2002. Reasons were not recorded by prosecution for arrest of applicant. It is further submitted that Sec. 50 of the PMLA, 2002 was also not complied with. No evidence and material was collected by ED. Reliance was placed upon the material which has been collected by CBI. It is submitted that offence under Ss. 3 and 4 are independent offences and ED ought to have collected material as per procedure prescribed in Sec. 50 and thereafter has to reach satisfaction on reasonable grounds and belief regarding guilt of the accused. Same has not been done and therefore, arrest is illegal and not warranted. It is further submitted that prosecution has given reason that applicant is not co-operating in investigation of case. It is submitted that said reason is not sufficient to make arrest under Sec. 19 of PMLA, 2002. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India, (2023) SCC Online SC 1244, wherein it is held that failure of an accused to respond to the questions put by ED would not be sufficient in itself for investigating officer to form on opinion that he is liable to be arrested under Sec. 19. Reason has to be digged out by the investigating officer. Mere non-cooperation will not be a cause for arrest under Sec. 19. Learned counsel for applicant further argued that twin conditions under Sec. 45 will be attracted only when mandatory provisions under Ss. 19 and 50 has been complied with by ED. On failure to comply with mandatory provisions in Sec. 19 and 50, twin conditions mentioned in Sec. 45 will not apply. In these circumstances, applicant be released on bail.