Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1172 (PNJ)

Shiv Raj Puri v. State of Haryana

2014-08-08

M.M.S.BEDI

body2014
JUDGMENT : M.M.S. Bedi, J. The petitioner seeks concession of pre-arrest bail in a complaint which has been filed by respondent No.2 under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short "the Act") which is an off shoot of FIR No.341 of 2010 registered on 27.11.2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 (B) IPC alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated the money of account holders, investors and the stock market. The petitioner was granted the concession of bail by High Court on 28.05.2012 in the said FIR. 2. Counsel for the complainant has raised a preliminary objection that in view of the provisions of Section 45 of Act, the petitioner cannot be granted the concession of bail as Section 45 (1) (ii) of the Act provides that no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of any such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions of Section 45 of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the offence is alleged to be punishable under the Prevention of Money and Laundering Act, 2002 which is not covered by the offences which have been described in Part A of the Schedule appended to the Act as amended w.e.f. 03.01.2013. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the un-amended Schedule would be applicable in the present case as the alleged offence in the FIR No.341 of 2010 as mentioned here in above, pertains to a period prior to the amendment and that Part A of the Schedule as existing before 03.01.2013 did not include Section 467 of IPC. 4. A perusal of the judgment Annexure P3 indicates that the petitioner has been acquitted of the alleged offence under Section 467, 468, 471, 201 and 477-A IPC. 5. 4. A perusal of the judgment Annexure P3 indicates that the petitioner has been acquitted of the alleged offence under Section 467, 468, 471, 201 and 477-A IPC. 5. The counsel for the complainant has further argued that the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail on account of the fact that the complaint by the Enforcement Directorate is not an offshoot of the said FIR but it is the result of independent investigation conducted by Enforcement Directorate and that the Enforcement Directorate is still investigating the matter and the process of detecting the other properties is still in progress. 6. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgments in Vikas Kumar Sinha v. The State of Jharkhand through Directorate of Enforcement 2011(2) J.C.R. 395 (Jhr.), Anos Ekka v. The State of Jharkhand, B.A. No.6982 of 2010, decided on 06.02.2011 and Union of India (UOI) v. Hassan Ali Khan and Another 2011 (4) RCR (Crl.) 427 to contend that the accused in similar circumstance had not been granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial in the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 7. I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. I have also gone through the judgments referred to above. Perusal of the said judgment indicates that there is no absolute par in granting the concession of pre-arrest bail in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 8. Petitioner in this case is entitled for pre-arrest bail on the following grounds:- (1) That the petitioner has been granted the concession of regular bail on 28.05.2012 in FIR No.341 of 2010 mentioned here in above and by that time the complainant (ECIR) had already been lodged on 22.03.2011. A final judgment has already been passed in the FIR on 25.02.2014. During the period of trial, the petitioner seems to have not misused his liberty as such the apprehension of complainant that the petitioner while on bail would misuse this liberty is misconceived at this stage. (2) It is debatable and is required to be adjudicated during the course of trial whether the provisions of Part A of the Schedule of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 will be applicable for the purpose of Section 45 of the Act. (2) It is debatable and is required to be adjudicated during the course of trial whether the provisions of Part A of the Schedule of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 will be applicable for the purpose of Section 45 of the Act. (3) The petitioner has already put in appearance before the said Court and has been granted the concession of interim bail. 9. In view of said circumstances, the interim order dated 2.7.2014 is hereby confirmed. The petitioner will remain on bail against the bail bond/surety bond already furnished by him subject to the condition that he will not tamper with the evidence in any manner and will not cause obstruction in the proceedings of the complaint case and will not absent himself without any sufficient cause and that he will not commit the similar offence of which he is accused of during the course of trial. The petitioner will not leave India without permission of the trial Court. In case of violation of any of the above said conditions, the bail will be liable to be cancelled.