PRANJIL BATRA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of a complaint bearing no. COMA-2-2021 dtd. 22/1/2021 under Sec. 4 read with Sec. 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'the PMLA').

(2.) Since the petitioner was neither initially arrayed as an accused in the complaint nor when some FIRs were registered in Haryana and Hyderabad pursuant to which some ECIRs came to be registered by Enforcement Directorate, the sequence leading to arraying of the petitioner as an accused needs to be referred to, which is briefly stated herein-under:

(3.) The learned counsel representing petitioner, while pressing for grant of bail, submitted that the petitioner had merely been an employee of the company of co-accused and was handling the software used by the company to maintain its accounts and other business related information and was neither any Director or share-holder in the company. It has been submitted that whatever amount he had received or had been credited in his account was on account of his professional remuneration, being a software expert.