MAHESH MITTAL Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant bail application has been filed under Sec. 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with ECIR No. JPZO/29/2023 dtd. 21/8/2023 recorded at Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Jaipur Zonal Office, Jaipur for the offences under Ss. 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Rs.the PMLA').

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel Mr. V.R. Bajava presents an argument, asserting that there is no substantial case against the petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He firmly states that the petitioner has not generated funds through illicit activities. Even if the petitioner secured the tender without full eligibility and there are inaccuracies in the certification, it's essential to recognise that the petitioner actively executed various works under the contract of the Jal Jeevan Mission, investing significant resources to meet the obligations outlined in government-issued work orders. Moreover, the relevant department has deposited the amount in the petitioner's account accordingly.

(3.) While the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has yet to arrest the petitioner regarding the predicate offence, charge sheets have been filed against other co- accused individuals in the predicate offence. The petitioner has not been arrested nor charge sheeted in the predicate offence. Padam Chand Jain, the other co-accused, also received a contract based on an allegedly fraudulent IRCON certificate and has been granted bail due to prolonged detention and the unlikelihood of a trial. The petitioner's circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, the duration of detention, and the likelihood of a timely trial, are similar to those of co-accused Padam Chand. Therefore, it is imperative to consider the provisions of Article 21 alongside Sec. 45 of the PMLA rather than viewing one as subservient to the other.