C. Parthasarthy v. Director of Enforcernentr

Order

This Criminal Petition has been hled under Sections 4gO and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by IICIR/HYZO /42/2022 on the file of the Directorate of Enforcernent, Hyderabad. petitioner seeking bail

2. The instant case originates frorn Crirne No.l5B of 2022 registered on O 1.O8.2022 at the Central. Crirne Station police Station, Hyderabad, against M/s. Sahiti Infratech Venture India Privale Limited, its Managing Director i.e., the petitioner herein, ancl othcrs, lor the offences under Sections 406 and 42O of the tndian penal Code, 1960 (hereinafter referred to, as 'lPC'). The said crime rvas instituted basing on a cornplaint loclgcci by Mr_ M. yashwanth Kurnar, who purported to bc a horne buyer. Subsequent to the registration of crirne, the provisions of Section l2O-B of the IPC ar-rd Section 3 ancl 5 of the Telangana protection of Dcpositors of (hereinaftcr rcferred to, as "IPDFE ActJ were incorporated [;'in:rncial Establishments Act, 2 into the case. The petitioner made as accused No.l in the aforernentioned crime.

3. Heard Sri D.V Seetharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Pratheek Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri D. Narendcr Naik, learned Standing Counsel for Directorate of Enforct'mctrt appearing on behaff of the respondent.

4. Learned Senior Cor.rnsel submittcd thirt basing on the cornplaint lodged by one M. Yashwanth Kumar, Crirne No.158 of 2022 was registered by the Centr::-l Crirne Station, Detective Departrnent, Hyderabad, again st M / s. Sahiti In[raLec Verrtures India Private l-imited (for shorl , 'the Cornpany), Managing Director of thc Compirny i.e., petitioner herein and others, for the offences rlnder Sections 406 and 42O of the Indian Penal Code, 1a6O (hcreirraft<:r refcrred to, as 'lPC') and sr-rbsequently, Sections 12o-t.i ol Lhc IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the TPDFE Act were zrcldecl . Thereafter, on 11.OA.2O22, under the Prevention of Moncy Laundering Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred to, rrs 'PMLA)' an Enforcement Case Inforrnation Report g,'a:; rc:giste rcd, uide ECIR/HYZO / 42 /2022 for the offenccs un<l<-'r Scctions 3 and 3 4 of ttre PMLA against the Cornpany, petitioner and others. On 12.08.2022, t}:,'e Police, Central Crirne Station, D.D Hyderabad, conducted a search and seized all the docurnents pertaining to the details of the projects undertaken by the Company. Basing on the other similar

compla-ints made in the variot- s police stations, First Information Reports were filed against the Company, the petitioner and others. The respondent issued surnrnons to the petitioner and his statements were recorded on 3L.1O.2022, Ol.1.l.2022 ar-d 02.11.2022. The petitioner was arrested by the Police of Central Crirne Station, D.D Hyderabad, in respect of Crime No.158 of 2022 on OI.12.2022 and he was in judicial custody till 31.O1.2023. Thereafter, on OL.O4.2023, the respondent conducted another search in the Company offi.ce as well as the residence of certain persons under Section 17(1A) of the PMLA and seized the materia.l and also collected the docurnents pertaining t() the case frorn the Centra-l Crirne Station, D.D Hyderabad. Thc respondent also seized ttre bank accounts belonging to the Cornpany, the petitioner and also otlrer directors of the Cornpany. On 20.12.2023, the provisional attachment was issued under Section 5 of the 4 PMLA attactring movable and imrnovable prcperties worth of Rs. 161.5O Crores belongs to the Compan-r', the petitioner and his farnily rnembers. The petitioner \vas arrestcd on

29.O9.2024 in connection wittr ECIR/HYZ<)/42/2022 daLed ll.OB.2O22 and he has been in judicial c\rstody SlNCC

30.o9.2024.

4. t . He fi.rrther submitted that the stzl Lemen ts of the petitioner were recorded and the entirc rn:tr-ci:ial was seized along with the bank accounts of the Comperny as wcll as the petitioner and other family mernbers. Thc petiti<>ner's passport was also seized. Hence, the possibility of tampering with evidence and a-lso inflr.rencing the wi t ncsscs docs rrot

4.2. Even according to the complaint of th( r<-'spondcnt, the investigation is under progress, due to whiclr, tl'rc [-ir-rzrl rcport has not been filed within the statutory pt:r'iod. As p<:r the provisions of Section 167 (2) of the Code ol Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to, zr:; 'Cr.P.C.'), il the final report is not filed within the stip r-rla t ed Lirnr:, ttrc pctitioner is entitled for grant of statutory brril 5 4 .3. He further subrnitted that the petitioner or his Cornpany 1S currently not engaging in any business operations and there is no scope of resurning the operations in the near fi.rture. Hence, there is no requirernent of continuing incarceration of the petitioner.

4.4. According to the prosecution, the investigation with respect to the petitioner herein has been completed. Even as per the counter-afhdavit of the respondent, the purported justification for the continued incarceration of the petitioner would slrow that the respondent is effectively trJ,eng to split up the investigation to the detrimcnt of the liberty of the petitioner and the sarne is violativc of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4.5. He further subrnitted that the respond.ent hled an application uide Crl.M.P.No.9O6 of 2025 in S.C.No.888 of 2024 on the hle of the MetropoliLan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, invoking the provision of Section 50 of the PMLA sceking permission to record Lhc stzrlcrne n t of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody, and the said application was aliowed O5.O3.2O25 perrnitting r<:spondent/lrrvest-igating Officcrs to cxarninc and record the 6 statement of the petitioner for two (2) days l>efore the prison authorities i.e Central Prison, Chanchalgr-rda, Hydcrabad. Hence, there is no requirement of further investigation. The pe titioner 1S ready and willing to cooperate witl-r further investigation, if any, and all subsequent proceedings, and he is entitled for grant of bail.

4.6. In support of his contention, tre relied u pon the follou,ing judgrnents rcads as follows:

1. C. Parthasarthy v. Director of Enforcernentr,

2. V. Senthil Balaji w. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcernentr,

3. Prern Prakash v. Union of Indi.a through the Directorate of Enforcetnent3,

4. Arwind l(ejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcernenta,

5. Per contra, Iearned Special Public Pros.ecutor slrltrniLt<:d that the pctitioner has cornrnitted grave of[r:nc<: ancl rr:<:civecl huge amount of more than 8OO Crores from L[-rc irrrroc'enl persons for thc purpose of construction of wor-lcl class residential gated comrnunity comprising of 32 floors :incl 10 ' (zoz2) 2 ALD (cri.) 404 ' 202q scc online sc 2626 ' lzoz+19 scc 787 1zozs1 z scc z+a o 7 t.owers in an extent of approxirnately 23 acres in Sy.Nos.343/8, 343/9, 343/ll, 343/ 12 and 343/ L3 of Ameenpur Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District. However, ttre Cornpany failed to acquire the necessaqr land and obtain variou s permissions required frorn the concerned authorities lor construction. Thus, the Cornpany had failed to deliver the flats or refunded the amount to the customers and defrauded thern for their hard-earned rrroney.

5. 1. He further submitted that basing on the complaint lodged by one Mr. Yashwanth Kurnar, Crirne No.158 of 2022 was rcgistered and subsequently, 56 F.l.Rs. were registered against lhe Comparly, petitioner and others, wherein hundreds of buyers/cornplainants of different projects underraken by the Company and other group firrns and companies were defrauded of a cr.rmulative arnount of rnore than Rs.3OO Crores under the pretcxt of delivery of flats/villas, but failcd to do so. As per the provisions of Section 3 of the PMLA and Sections 4(J6 and 42O of the IPC are applicable to the petitioner and as per the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, the petitioner is not cntitled lor grant of bail.

5.2. I{e also sltbrnitted that on 14 .1O.2022, the Investigating C)fficcrs issued surnrnons for recording thc statemcnt of the B petitioner Lrnder Section 5O(2) and (3) of the PMLA and on

31.1O.2022, Ol.ll.2022 and 02.11.2022, dur:ng the course o[ recording the staternent of the petitioner, underLook to subrnit information and documents as sought by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner is a very influential p<:rson. When thc petitioner was E.D. custody on 17.IO.2024, tte petitionor was found in illegal possession of one mobile phone, without obtaining any perrnission frorn the Court cr the custodian. Accordingly, the rnobile phone possessed by the petitioncr ',,r'as impounded under Section 5O(5) of the PMLA, through thc lmpounding Order dated 17.1O.2024. However, instead of appearing bclorc the Investigating Offrcer to subrnit requisit<: information, Lhe pctitioner submitted a fake rnedical cerLificat<: orr 18.11.2022. Thc Investigating Officers havc given nurnb<:r' of opportunities through sttrnmons dated 05.O4.2-023, L2.O5.2O23, 26.U-5.2023, 17.Oa.2O23 a;rd l.!t.O9.2024, br-rt ht: rcrnained evasive and failed to appear before, thc Invcslig:r[ing Officer and not produced the requisite infornration. Whcn tht' respond en t,/ I n vestiga ting Officers enquired zrbout thc mt:<lic:tl certificate produced by the petitioner through the conc:c rnccl Mcdical Officer, who categorically denied and stated thaL hc h:rs not treated thc petitioncr and not issued the rledical ccrt ilicate. which was producccl by the petitioner, and thc saicl tn<:<lical 9 certificate was a forged and fabricated one and the petitioner is absconding. 5-3. Sirnilarly, the petitioner,s family rnernbers, namely his son Boodati Satwik and his wife parvathi, were a,lso summoned on multiple occasions. However, they appeared on one occasion on 05.06.2O23 and recorded their staternents under Section 50 o[ thc PMLA. During the course of investigation, rnosl of the qucstions posed by the Investigating Officers, they rcmained evasive and undertook to submit documents and informaLion within three days. However, they failed to provide tlre rcquisite cl()cumcnts and information and subseqLlenlly rernained a bsconding.

5.4. I-{c lurther subrnitted that the petitioner has collccted httgc amount of Rs.SOO Crores, however, ttrc attachmcnt of procecds of crirne to the tune of Rs. 161.5O Crores ltas been dorre so far and the actual quanturn of fraud cornmittcd by the petitioner is rnuch bigger than the attachrncnt zrnd lurther invcstigation to qr. antifo the rernaining proceeds o[ crimc ancl to attach the sarne is under progress. The invcstigation conducted by the respondent has revealed thc dcrzrils of additional proceeds of crime concealed by the petitioner, r1<.spitc in the judicial custody. .-_.,. 10

5.5. He further subrnitted that subsequent to f,i1ing of thc prosecution cornplaint on 05.11.2024, the investigatton conducted by the respondent has revea-led that the petitioner continues to be involved in activities relate(l to procceds of crime. Though the petitioner is in judicial cr-rstody, acting on his instructions, the proceeds of crime were trartsferred to the bank account of his daughter-in-law, who subsequently withdrew thc proceeds o[ crime in cash an<l handed it to a person of the petitioner. The investigation est'ablished that the petitioner, despite being in judicial custody, a'rtively engaged in laundering tl-re proceeds of thc crime. Considering ttre conduct of the petitioner, if he is granted bail, he nrill dissipate the laundered proceed s of crime.

5.6. He lurther submitted that the son rrf t-tre narnely Boodati Sathwik, approached this Court Crl. P. No. 138 I 7 ol 2024 lor grant of anticipatory bail in thc: and filed petltroncr, above saicl crirne. This Court on 13.12.2024 'lismissed the said applicaLion by giving cogent reasons. In spite of issuing sLlmrrrons, the pctitioner and his wife as well as his son arc noL cooperating with thc invcsLigation and they a::e absconding'

5.7. He furtLrer submitted that tLre reslrondent filed thc complaint r"r.'ithi n thc statutory period of linritation as per thc 11 provisions of the PMLA. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of statutory bail and the judgrnent, which was relied upon by the learned Senior Cor.rnsel for the petitioner, in C. Parthasarthy sutrtra is not applicable to the facts and circurnstances of the present case.

5.8. He further subrnitted that as per the provisions of sub- section (ii) of Section a5(1) of the PMLA, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail basing upon his conduct and the petitioner has comrnitted grave offence and collected huge arnolrnt frorn the innocent persons to a tune of Rs.8OO Crores and the sarne amotrnts to morrey la.undering as per thc provisions of the PMLA and the petitioner is not entitled for grane of bail.

5.9. In support of his contention, tre relied upon the judgment of the Hon'lcle Sr.rprerne Cor.rrt in The Union of India, through the Assistant Director v. I(anhaiya Prasads.

6. Having considered the rival subrrrissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of ttre materia,l available on record, it reveals that on Ol.Oa.2O22, one Mr. M. Yashrvanth Kumar lodged a cornplaint against the M/s. Sahiti Infratec s 2025 SCC Online SC 306 t2 Ventu.res India Private Lirnited, the petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the said Company, and others, and the Central Crime Station, Detective Departm€nt, Hyderabad, registered the case for the offences under Sections 4o-6 and 42O of the IPC and subsequently, Sections 12O-B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 7999, were added. The Cornpany advertised a pre-launch offer in s;ocial media for constrrction of world class residential ga,ted cornmunity comprising of 32 floors and 10 towers in an extent of approxirnately 23 acres in Sy.Nos.343/8, 343/9, 343/11, 343 / 12 and 343 / 13 of Arneenpur Villagr3 and Ma:rdal, Sangareddy District. Pursuant to thc sarne, th,: complainant as well as 24O other customers pa.id zrn a.rnount of Rs.72,a 1,9a,OOO/ to the Company. Howeve:r, the Corrrpany failed to acquire the necessary land and otrta-in vzrrious permissions required frorn thc concerned auttrorities a.nd thus the Cornpany had failed to deliver Lhe flats 1.o the c1lstorners and also failed to relund the money and cheated thern for their hard earned rrroncy. The record further reveals; that again st the above said Company as well as the pclitioner and others, rnore than 56 cases were registered. Subsequentllr, the respondent initiatectsagoceedings exercising the powers colrferred Lrnder the 13 provisions of the PMLA and conducted investigation on the complaint dated 1L.Oa.2O22 and the sarne was registered as trCIR/HYZO /42/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the pMLA against the Company, the petitioner ald other persons. The record further reveals that during the collrse of investigation, on 12.Oa.2022, the Investigating Officers seized the docurnents frorn the office of the Cornpany and also recorded the statements of the petitioner on 31.LO.2022,O1.L1.2022 and 02.11.2022. During the course of investigation, the respondent carne to know that the petitioner has collected huge arnount ie., rnore than 8OO Crores, under the guise of construction of residential gated cornmunity, however, they attached only Rs.161.5O Crores of proceeds of crirne. The petitioner has not cooperating with the invcstigation. The record further reveals that the Investigating Officers have issued sumrrrons on O5.O4.2O23, 12.C5.2023,

26.O5.2O23, 17.Oa.2023 and 1O.O9.2O24 to appea-r before thern and submit requisite inforrnation/docurnents, however, the petitioner produced the medical certificate through e-mail dated la-LL.2022 issued by the Doctor and sought tirne. When the Investigating Olficers enquired the Doctor, who specifically stated that he has not treated the petitioner and has not issued the said medical certiflcate. According to the Investigating l4 Officers, the rnedical certificate produced by ttre petitioner is a forged and fabricated one 7 . The record fi.rrther reveals that the son of the petitioner was made an acct. sed No.5 in the said crirne. 'lhe Investigating Officers have issued sllmmons to the wife and son of the petitioner to appear before them for recording their staternents as well as the production of the document, however, they appeared only on one occasion i.e., on '-15.06.2023, and subseqr-rently, according to the Investigating Ofhcer, they are not cooperating with the investigation and absconded. Insofar as the contention raiscd by tht: learned Senior 8. Counsel for the pctitioner that the inves;tigation is not cornpleted and they have not filed final r€:port wittrin the stipulated tirne and as per the provisions of S,:ction 167 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner is entitled for the beneftt of grant of statutory bail is concerncd, the record reveals that the Investigating Off,rcers after cornpleting in vestigation filed cornplaint in ECIR/HYZA/42i2022 on 05. i7.2C24 before the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the safile was taken cognizance on 04.I2.2O24 and numbered as S.C,No.BSS of

2024. Even according to the parties, thc rnat ter is corning up for framing of charges. Hence, this Court is rtf [he considered 15 view that the petitioner is not entitled to seek beneht under the provisions of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. for grant of statutory bail' g. It is relevant to extract the provision of section 167 (21 of the Cr.P.C.

167. Procedure when investigation cannot l'e comPleted in twe[ty-four ltorrrs,- ( 1) xxx xxx xxx (21 The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, wlrether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, frorn time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a terrn not exceeding fifteen days in the whote; and if he has no jurisdiction to try Lhe case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, hc may order the accr"rsed to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Providcd that- (a) thc Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwisc than in the custody of the police' beyond the period of fiftecn days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but n() Magistrate shall authorise the detention o[ the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,- (il ninety days, whcre Lhe tnvestigation relates to an offence punishable rvith death, imprisonment for life or imprisonrnent for a tcrm of not less lhan tcn Ycars; (ii) sixty days, whcrc the investigation relates to any other offence' and, on thc cxpiry of the said pcriod of ninety days' or sixty days' as thc casc may be, the accused pcrson shall be released on bail if he is prcparcd to at]d does furnish bai't, and every person rcleasccl on bail under this sub secti()n shall be deerned to be so rcleascd undcr the provisious o[ Chapter XxxIII for the purposes of that Chaptcr; : -"? t6 (b) no Magistrate shall custody or the porice "":::i";:"".::::,'::,.I ,1. ":."_" ,: produced before him in person for the first time arrd subscqucntly every time till the accuse but the Masistrate ;;;t.-',:fl" r,:j:. :::"::""r,I rjll.i"; custody on production of in pcrson or throush the rnedium or electronic j::"";'"1::,'ither (c) no Magistrate of the se this beharr uy ttr" Higt custody of the police. f::; "::ff..":l;::"" ;I" -lco"rLl Explanation I.-For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the pcriod sp<:cificd in para (a), the accused shall be no t rurni sh uair. e*pra.,at1::"li':, : J ffi ,:.",:::" :" X ":;:: an accused person was required under clause,",, .:. ::;":.,::;,['.,:::::.:::"; may be proved by his signature on the ord( - authorising detention or by the ord production or ,n" ."..,,11T:t':""j .oJ."["n ":;:'"::::,T :: electronic video linkage, as the case mav be Provided further that in ca age, the detention sfraff U) remand home or recognised social institution., of a woman undcr eigirteclt -1,cars of 3 authorised to be in th( cu stod-\. of ir 1O. Section 16Z(2) of Cr.p.C. was introduced ir r rhe yt:ar 197g, giving emphasis to the maximum period of tirnc to complcLe the investigation' This provision has got a- laudable object i-reirinci it, which is to ensure an expeditious investigation and a rair trial, and to set down a rationalised procedure thirt protects the rnterests of the indigent sections of society. This is =rlso another limb of Arti cle 2L, agency has to expedite thc process of t7 investigation as a suspect is languishing under incarceration. Thus, a duty is enjoined upon the agency to cornplete the investigation within the time prescribed and a faih-rre would enable the release of the accused. The right enshrined is an absolute and indefeasible one, ensuring to the benefit of suspect.

11. It is already stated supra that the respondent after conducting investigation had filed cornplaint on 05. LL-2O24 before Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the sarne was taken cognizance on 04. 12.2024 and nr- rnbered as S.C.No.888 of 2024 and the case is posted lor framing of charges. Hence, this Court of considered view that the pe[itioner is not entitled to claim the benefit under Section L67 (21 of the Cr.P.C, for grant of statutory bail.

12. In C. Parthasarthy supra, the Hon'ble Suprerne Cor'rrt held that an accused is entitled to staLutory bail under Section the Criminal Procedure Code (C.. P.C') if 167(21 of investigation is not completed within lhe prescribed tirne lirnit of 60 days for offences not punishable by death or life irnprisonment. The court ernphasized that the fiIing of an incornplete charge sheet or complaint does not negate this right if the investigation rernains unfinished. The case stated that the l8 essential balance between the rights o[ the a(]crlsed and the duties of investigative authorities, emphasizing the importance of personal Iiberty. It highlights the oblig.ation of these authorities to complete investigations within zr reasonable timeframe, ensuring that personal liberty i r; n ot unj ustly compromised.

12.7. In V. Senthil Balaji supra, the H<>n,ble Supreme Court held an accused is entitled to bail if the rrial is expected to extend beyond a reasonable tirneframe, particularly when thc period of incarceration has exceeded a signihcar: t portion of thc potential sentence, thereby safeguarding the ri;1ht to a spcedy trial. The appellant, in this case had been detained for ovcr l5 months under the prevention of Money l.aundcr_ing Act (l)Ml_A) anci argued that the complexity of the casc, inr.olvrng multiplc accused and witnesses, indicated that the t r ial courcr Lak<: several years. Although the Enforcement Dir_r:ctoratc r:riscd concerns about potential evidence tampering ,Cue to l3zrlarji,s influential position, the court found that the tri:rls for both the scheduled offences ald the pMLA charge r.r,.ou ld rrot conr:Iuclc in a reasonable time, violating his right to a spc<:dy trizr[ undcr Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, thr: courr granted bail with specific conditions, emphasizing tl_r c necessitr.. ol 19 timely judicial processes and the obligation to Prevent prolonged detention without trial.

12.2. In Prerrr Prakash supra, the Hon'lcle Suprerne Court held that the conditions for granting bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Lar.rndering Act (PMLA). imposes certain restrictions on bail, it does not create an absolute bar. The key principle is that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," in Iine with Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to personal liberty. The court emphasized that prolonged detention without trial infringes on the right to a speedy trial, especially when the accused has been in cr-rstody for a significant time with no imminent resolution of ttre case. Additionally, allegations of misuse of jail facilities should be addressed by the appropriate authorities but should not be the sole reason for denying bail.

12.3. In Arvind Kejriwal supra, the l{on'lcle Supreme Court held that a bail application under the Prevention of Money Lamndering Act (PMLA) can be firled at any stage of the proceedirrgs, irrespective of whether a complaint has been lodged or charges framed, emphasizing that the right to bail is not contingent on the stage of the case. The court further held that the necessit;i for arrest under Scction 19(1) of the PMLA 20 must be justified beyond rnere cornpliance with lormal paramcters, aligning with the principles of the ()ode of criminal Proccdure. Additionally, irLtroduced thc proportionality test, which requires a careful t>alance between individual rights and public interest, assessing .:he legitirnacy of the aim, rational connection, availability of less restrictive alternatives, and overall balance. The right tc, bail is upheld while considering the necessity of arrest ald the protection of fundarnental rights. 13 The judgments relied upon by the rearned senior counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to facts an<l circumstances of this case on the ground that the provisiorrs of thc PMLA specilically prohibits money laundering, a serlous threat to national financial integrit5r. 14 [n the present case, wh e the petitioner is in l)irectoratc o[ Enforcemcnt crlstody, on LZ.LO.2024, the:-esponclenL was found ir-r illegal possession of one rnobile phon<: without pcrmission lrom the Court or custodian. Thc responcl-ent b]/ invoking the provisions of Section SO (S) of the pM LA, impotrnded the said mobile phone through ordcr dated 17.IO.2024. 21

15. On a perusa-l of the record, the actr-ral qr-lanturn of fraud cornrnitted by the petitioner is much bigger than the attachment and further investigation to quantify the rernaining proceeds of crirne to attach the sarne is l.nder Progress to that extent. The said averrnent was not denied by the petitioner arld even as per the provisions of Section 5 of the PMLA, the investigation is essential to trace and attach the remaining proceeds of the crirne.

16. It is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA Act, which reads as follows: '45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity tc ( 1) lNotwithstanding an5rthing contained in the Codc of Criminal Procedure, L973 12 of 19741, no pers()n accuscd of an offence [under this Act] [Substituted by Act 20 of 2005, Scction 7, for certain words (w.e.f. 1.7.2OO5).1 shall be rclcased on bail or on his own bond unless] (i) oppose the application for such releasc; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes thc applic.ttiorr, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for belicving that he is not guilty of such offcnce arnd that hc is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person, who is under tl-re age of sixtecn ycars or is a woman or is sick or infirm [or is accused either on his own or along with ottrer co-accused of m on e1z-lau ndering a surn of lcss than one crore rupeesl ltnserted by Firaance Act, 20 l8 (Act No' l3 of 20 18) dated 29.3.20 18.1, may be rcleased on bai[, i[ thc Specral Court so directs: 22 Provided further that the Special Court shall not takc cognizance of any offcnce punishable under section 4 exccpt upon a complaint in writing made by (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Governrnent or Statc Governmcnt authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or a special order made in tltis behalf by that Governmcnt. [(l-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Cod(.of Criminal Proccdurc, )973 12 of I9T4), or any other provision of this Act, no policc officcr shall investigate into an offence l- ncler this Act u nlcss specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribcd;l Itnscrted by Act 20 of 2OO5, Secti]n 7 (w.e.f. l.7.2OOsl.l (21 Thc limitation on granting of bail specified in [***] [The words "clausc (b) ' ornitted by Act 20 of 2OO5, Secl ion 7 (w.c-f. l.7.2OO5l.l of sub-section (1) is in addition to th( lirnitations under the (lode of Criminal procedure, 7gZ3 (2 of 1974) or any other law for thc time being in force on granting of bail."

17. Thc abovc said provision clearly revea,ls that there is spccific bar to grant bail subject to certain conditions. Il thc Court is satisficd that there are reasonable grotrnds that hc is not E{uilty o[ such offence and he is not likely to commit thc oflcnce whilc on bail.

18. In I(anhaiya Prasad supra, the Hon,lcle liupreme Court held that thc l)revenrion of Money Laundering Act (pMLA) aims to prcvent moncy laundering, a seriolrs offense that thrcatcns the nation's financial integrity and sovereignty. It is mcrrtioned in Section 45 of thc PMLA, which has an overriding cffccr on 23 the Code of Criminal Procedure Cr-P.C, irnposes two rnandatory conditions for granting bail to individuals accused of offenses punishable by rnore than three years of imprisonment and the prosecutor rnust be allowed to oppose the bail application, and the court must frnd reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and r.rnlikely to reoffend. In this case, the High Court granted bail in a cast-.al rnanner without adhering to thcse reqr-rirernents, failing to establish any reasonable grounds for the respondent's innocence or likelihood of reoffending, rendering the bail order ttnst. stainable and untenable in law. The Supreme Cot. rt set aside the High Court's decision and remancied the rnatter for fresh consideration, reinforcing the necd for thorough judicial scrutiny in cases involving rrroney Ia lr ndering.

19. It is very rnuch relevant to place on record that in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda6, the Hon'blc Suprerne Court held that in connection with serious allegations of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering A<;t (PMLA), has been enacted to deal with the subject of mone-v laundering activities which poses a significant threat to the nzrtion's financial integritSr and sovereignty of the countries. It highlighted the mandatory conditions under Section 45 of the " ,1025 SCC OnLine SC 764 24 PMLA for granting bail, which require the prosecutor to bc given an opportunity to oppose bail and thr: court to find reasonable grounds for believing the accused irs not guilty and unlikely to reoffend. Any casual or cursory approach by the Courts while considering the bail application of the offender involved in the offence of money laundering aad granting bail by passing cryptic orders without considering the seriousness of the crime and rvithout considering the rigou rs of Section 45, carrnot be justified. In the present case, the Suprerne Court found that the High Court had granted bail in i1 castra-l rnanner without adhering to these requirernents, failing to establish any reasonable grounds for the respondent's innocence or likelihood of reoffencling. Consequently, the Sutpreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, rernanding th(: rnatter for fresh consideration whilc undcrscoring the serious natr-rre of money laundering offenses and the need for stringent judicial scrutiny in sr.rch cases. The rcspondent was ordered to sr:rrender before the Special Courl within a week.

20. The r()spondenL specilically averred in the cotlntcr- affidavit that when the petitioner is in judicial custody, the proceeds of crirnc rvas transferred to the account of the daughter-in- lart, oI the petitioner and s].lbsequently, she 25 withdrew the proceeds of crirne in cash and handed it the person of the petitioner.

21. It is already stated supra as per the Investigating Ofhcers, the medical certificate produced by the petitioner is a forged and fabricated one and while the petitioner was in judicial custody, on 17. IO.2024, he possessed a rnobile phone, without obtaining any permission frorn the Court or the custodian. The above said conduct of the petitioner clearly reveals thac if the petitioner released on bail, he will investigation, which is going to be conducted by the interfere with Investigating Ofhcer to quantify the rernaining proceeds of crime and to attach the said amou.nt, and he also likely to comrnit offcnces- Hence, as per Section 45 of the pMLA and bzrsing on the said conduct, this Cor-rrt is of the view that the pctitioncr is not entitled for grant of bail at this stage, especially erccording to the Investigating Officers they have attached the proceeds of crime only to a turre of Rs. 161.50 Crores and further invcstigation to qualtify the rernaining proceeds of crimc and attach the sarne is under progress.

22. [t is relevant to extract the explanation (ii) o[ sub-section ( I I of Sccrion 44 of the PMLA. 26 "44. Olfences triable by Special Courts. (1) xxx xxx xxx (i) (ii) xxx xxx xxx Itre complaint shall be deemed to include any subsequcnt complaint in respect of further investigation that may be conducted to bring any further evidence, oral or docurnentary, against any accused person involvecl in respect of the offence, for wh Lch complaint has already been filed, whcther named i1 the original complaint or not".

23. Thus, the above said provisions clearly reveal that even subsequent to I-rling of the cornplaint also, the Investigating Offrcers are entitled to conduct further investigation to bring further oral and documentary evidence agairlst any acclrsed person in respect of the oflence.

24. It is already st.rted supra tlr.aL the spec,ific claim of the respondent is that thc pctitioner has collected the huge arnorlnt of proceeds of crimc of morc than Rs.SOO Crores and they attached proceeds of crimc only to a tune of l?s. 161.5O Crores and further investlgation to quantify the rernaining proceeds of crime and to attach the s:rme is under progress,

25. Taking inLo considcration the facts and circurnstances of the case and also the gravity of t-he offcnce, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 27

26. Accordingly, the crimina,l petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. To, SD'- AHM A ED ABDULLAH KHAN SISTANT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER Hvderabad. Hvderabad.

1. The Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge' Specia Judge (PMLA), NamPallY, , i#34ffi; House ofFrcer, Central Crime Station Polkr Station' D D' : ij'"".,=ctTJsRl PAIDA PRATIK REDDY, Advocale-toPUCl 4. Two CCs to the puoric plilecuti'i'?L tn"'siit" oi rLhnga;ta at Hvderabad to the Public Prosecutor for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad t. 6. Two CD CoPies t?11". touTl SM/KR *8, HIGH COURT DATED: 1610412025 tJ ),-) .!., H1 S r,1 r.-" o 2 UJ7 N 2025 a,s,: ..rri ORDER CRLP.No.2530 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITTON