Supreme Court: Accused Not Entitled To Bail Merely Because Chargesheet Has Been Filed In Predicate Offence In Money Laundering Case| PMLA

The Supreme Court in the case Directorate of Enforcement vs Aditya Tripathi observed and has held that mere fact that chargesheet has been filed for the predicate offences is not being a ground to release the accused on bail with regards to the in connection with the offences as stated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, PMLA.
The bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar in the case observed while allowing an appeal filed by the Directorate of Enforcement challenging the order passed by the Telangana High Court wherein the bail is granted to the accused in a money laundering case. Therefore, the money laundering case was predicated on a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 which is being registered in Madhya Pradesh in connection with awarding tender works of the MP Water Corporation.
It has also been argued by the Enforcement Directorate in the case that the High Court erred in granting bail on the ground that chargesheet has been filed in the corruption case. Thus, the Supreme Court accepted the said argument wherein it opined that the High Court has not taken in consideration the rigours of Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, PMLA. It has also been stated by the Supreme Court that the fact that other accused are being discharged or are acquitted from the predicate offences is not a ground in order to grant bail to the respondent.
Further, the bench in the case observed that it appears that what is weighed with the High Court is that chargesheet has been filed against respective respondent No. 1 – accused and therefore, the said investigation is said to be completed. Therefore, the High Court in the case observed and has failed to notice and appreciate that the investigation with respect to the scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, PML Act, 2002 by the Enforcement Directorate is still going on.
Accordingly, the court set aside the bail granted to respondent no.1 and the court in the case directed him to surrender before the concerned jail authority within a week.