Petitioner, accused in alleged PMLA predicate offence of financial fraud, sought anticipatory bail. Court held petitioner failed to show twin conditions for pre-arrest bail and dismissed petition.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed; liberty to file fresh application after time or change of circumstances allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.16899 of 2023
Orders Reserved on Orders Pronounced on 13.09.2023 27.09.2023
Crl.O.P.No.16899 of 2023
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.
The petitioner who is arrayed as accused apprehends arrest at the
hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B IPC, 1860 of the scheduled offences under PMLA Act registered in ECIR/CEZO-I/62/2022, seeks anticipatory bail.
1/7
Crl.O.P.No.16899 of 2023
submitted that a case has been registered by the Economic Offence Wing, Chennai in FIR No.16 of 2022; that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the case has been charge sheeted and pending before the Special Court for TNPID Cases, Chennai in C.C.No.7 of 2022; that the petitioner name is not found in the charge sheet, despite that on the basis of the FIR by the Economic Offence Wing, Chennai, the petitioner has been roped into the offence. The earlier anticipatory bail petition has been dismissed as withdrawn in Crl.OP No.8233 of 2023 on 13.06.2023.
4 (i) Mr.N.Ramesh, Special Public Prosecutor for ED Cases filed
counter statement and copy has been served on the other side. As per the counter, the Economic Offence Wing, Chennai Police registered a FIR No.16 dated 04.08.2023 under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC, 1860, 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in financial establishments) Act and 3,5 21 (1) 21 (2), 21 (3), 23 and 25 of The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act against (1) LNS International Financial Services Limited (2) Mohan Babu s/o Vijayan (3) Lakshmi Narayan s/o Sundaram (5)
Crl.O.P.No.16899 of 2023
Janarthanan s/o Sundaram (b) Saravana Kumar s/o Ganesh and others for duping investors by promising high returns on investment made with them and then renegading on the same. After registration of FIR, the police had conducted raids at the premises of the accused persons and found that over a lakh people had invested amount to the tune of Rs.6000 Crores in Ponzi Scheme running by accused. The police, on its enquiry found that the money collected from the depositors was supposed to be invested in stock market by the same was used to pay off previous investors. Treating this as a predicate offence, the present respondent, Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue, Chennai initiated investigation by recording ECIR bearing No.ECIR/CEZO-I/62/2022 dated 23.11.2022 against Shri Mohan Babu V and others as the Section 420 and 120(B) of IPC 1860 are the scheduled offences of Part A of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
4(ii) Based upon the counter, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Enforcement Directorate contended that the Predicate Agency Chennai has filed charge sheet against 19 accused (6 companies and 13 individuals) for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 420, 409, 120B of IPC,
Crl.O.P.No.16899 of 2023
1860, Section 5 of TN Protection of Interest of Depositors Act and 3, 5, 21 (1), 21 (2), 21(3), 23 and 25 of The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act.
5 (i) The learned Special Public Prosecutor for ED would further contend that the petitioner was working under one Jagannathan and has brought huge investments from investors and deposited in this Ponzi Scheme through the said Jagannathan and thereby earned huge commission which is under investigation. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would further contend that in order to identify Proceeds of Crime and records relating to Money Laundering, a search team was deputed to the residence of the petitioner herein on 03.04.2023 but it was found locked and efforts to locate the petitioner over his mobile number explaining the purpose of visit also failed. On 05.04.2023, the Enforcement Directorate unlocked the house of the petitioner and made a search, as contemplated under Section 117 of the PMLA Act and seized incriminating materials. The petitioner has not
Crl.O.P.No.16899 of 2023
appeared for the summon enquiry and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A No.534 of 2023 in Directorate of Enforcement vs. M.Gopal Reddy wherein it has been held that even for anticipatory bail in PMLA Cases, the twin conditions of Section 45 has to be complied with and also produced certain documents incriminating circumstances against the petitioner.
Crl.O.P.No.16899 of 2023
am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner for the present, with a liberty to file fresh application after passage of time or change in circumstances.
27.09.2023
rgr
Crl.O.P.No.16899 of 2023
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.
rgr
order in Crl.O.P.No.16899 of 2023
27.09.2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has demonstrated the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA Act for grant of anticipatory bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Crl.A No.534 of 2023 in Directorate of Enforcement vs. M.Gopal ReddyReferred¶26
_Crl.A No.534 of 2023 in Directorate of Enforcement vs. M.Gopal Reddy_
Rmt. Teekaa Raman
Teebaka Raman
Rmt. Teekaa Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
