The Supreme Court has said that merely because a
charge sheet is filed for the predicate offences, it cannot be a ground to
release an accused on bail in connection with scheduled offences under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
A bench of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar
said: "Merely because, for the predicated offences, the charge sheet might
have been filed, it cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail in
connection with the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002."
Justice Shah, who authored the judgment on behalf of
the bench, said: "Investigation for the predicated offences and the
investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under
the PML Act are different and distinct."
The top court made these observations while
considering an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the Telangana High
Court orders, allowing the bail applications and a direction to enlarge Aditya
Tripathi on bail in connection with the offences under the PMLA.
An FIR was registered in April 2019, by the Economic
Offences Wing, Bhopal, naming about 20 persons/companies as accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, Section 66
of the IT Act, 2000 and Section 7(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
It was found in the preliminary enquiry that
e-tender for total works amounting to Rs. 1,769.00 crore of the Madhya Pradesh
Water Corporation were tampered with to change the price bid of M/s GVPR
Engineers Ltd, M/s The Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd and M/s IMC (sic) Project India
Ltd to make them the lowest bidders. A charge sheet was filed before the
competent court on July 4, 2019, and it was found that the accused have also
committed the offences under PMLA, and the Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad
initiated money laundering investigation.
The top court said from the high court orders, it
appears that what is weighed with the court is that the charge sheet has been
filed against respective respondent No. 1 - accused and therefore, the
investigation is completed.
"The High Court has failed to notice and
appreciate that the investigation with respect to the scheduled offences under
the PML Act, 2002 by the Enforcement Directorate is still going on," it
said.
The bench said the high court has taken into
consideration the irrelevant consideration and it has neither considered the
rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, nor has considered the seriousness of the
offences alleged against accused for the scheduled offences under the PML Act,
2002.
"The High Court has not at all considered the
fact that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled
offences under the PML Act, 2002 is still going on and therefore, the impugned
orders passed by the High Court enlarging respective respondent No. 1 on bail
are unsustainable and the matters are required to be remitted back to the High
Court for afresh decision on the bail applications...", said the bench.
Tripathi's counsel contended that his client was not
named in the FIR with respect to the scheduled offence(s) and that all the
other accused are discharged/acquitted in so far as the predicate offences are
concerned.
But the court said: "Merely because other
accused are acquitted/discharged, it cannot be a ground not to continue the
investigation in respect of respective respondent No. 1... Therefore, the
enquiry/investigation for the scheduled offences itself is sufficient at this
stage," said the bench, adding that there are very serious allegations of
money laundering which are required to be investigated thoroughly.
The top court set aside the high court orders and
directed Tripathi to surrender before the competent court having jurisdiction
or before the concerned jail authority within a period of one week. "The
matters are remitted back to the High Court to consider the bail applications
afresh in light of the observations made hereinabove and after respective
respondent No. 1 surrenders within a period of one week as ordered above.
Present appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent," said the
bench, in the judgment delivered on Friday.