Interim Protection from Arrest not a Ground for Anticipatory Bail: Delhi HC Rejects Plea of Money Laundering Accused [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court has held that the grant of interim protection from arrest during the pendency of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) cannot be a ground for mandatorily allowing anticipatory bail.

The decision was given by the Delhi High Court while hearing anticipatory bail applications filed by Bhaskar Yadav and Ashok Kumar Sharma arising from the same prosecution complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

The facts pertain to two FIRs registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging offences of cheating, criminal conspiracy and technology-enabled fraud. As per the prosecution complaint, the accused individuals were allegedly involved in large-scale laundering and siphoning of public money by duping innocent citizens in the guise of investment schemes and part-time job offers.

The funds were stated to be initially collected in primary bank accounts and then layered through numerous mule accounts across the country and eventually withdrawn through overseas ATMs or routed through foreign fintech platforms.

ED conducted searches at multiple premises in India, recovering substantial amounts of Indian and foreign currency from some accused persons, while several others were stated to be absconding at the time of filing of the prosecution complaint.

Consequently, the Directorate issued summons to several individuals under Section 50 of the PMLA, which included the applicants herein. The ED alleged that most of the summoned persons failed to comply with the summons and did not cooperate with the investigation.

A team of Advocates led by Manu Sharma appeared for the petitioners that the co-accused persons had already been granted regular bail and it was on that basis that the petitioners were granted interim protection earlier.

Stating that the petitioners had complied with the investigation even when they were not under judicial protection from arrest, it was contended that no purpose would be served by denying them anticipatory bail.

Counsel for the ED, led by Vivek Gurnani opposed the bail applications citing that the appellants were proved to have wiped out all electronic evidence, assaulted officers of the ED, and were complicit in layering and concealing the proceeds of crime. Citing their deep involvement in the alleged criminal activities, it was contended that they are not eligible for anticipatory bail.

While examining the anticipatory bail pleas, Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that interim protection from arrest had been operating for a period of time. However, the Court underscored that such interim protection is granted to ensure fair adjudication and cannot be treated as a vested right to secure anticipatory bail.

The court noted that there are no reasonable grounds on which it can be believed that the petitioners are not guilty of the offence that they are charged with and are unlikely to commit further offences while on bail.

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the petitioners’ plea for anticipatory bail.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates