Offence under PMLA - Irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to the INX Media for receiving foreign investment above against approved inflow - grant anticipatory bail - HELD THAT:- Section 4 of the Act read with the Second Schedule of the Code makes it clear that the offences under the PMLA are cognizable offences. As pointed out earlier, Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was then found a mention in Part ‘A’ of the Schedule (Paragraph 8). Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is punishable for a term extending to seven years. Essential requirement of Section 45 of PMLA “accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part ‘A’ of the Schedule” is satisfied making the offence under PMLA. There is no merit in the contention of the appellant that very registration of the FIR against the appellant under PMLA is not maintainable.
While considering the request for anticipatory bail and while perusing the materials/note produced by the Enforcement Directorate/CBI, Single Judge could have satisfied his conscience to hold that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. On the other hand, Single Judge has verbatim quoted the note produced by the respondent- Enforcement Directorate.
Single Judge, was not right in extracting the note produced by the Enforcement Directorate/CBI which in our view, is not a correct approach for consideration of grant/refusal of anticipatory bail. But such incorrect approach of the learned Single Judge, in our view, does not affect the correctness of the conclusion in refusing to grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant in view of all other aspects considered herein.
Since the interrogation of the accused and the questions put to the accused and the answers given by the accused are part of the investigation which is purely within the domain of the investigation officer, unless satisfied that the police officer has improperly and illegally exercised his investigating powers in breach of any statutory provision, the court cannot interfere. In the present case, no direction could be issued to the respondent to produce the transcripts of the questions put to the appellant and answers given by the appellant.
Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court.
Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
In a case of money-laundering where it involves many stages of “placement”, “layering i.e. funds moved to other institutions to conceal origin” and “interrogation i.e. funds used to acquire various assets”, it requires systematic and analysed investigation which would be of great advantage. As held in Anil Sharma, success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by a pre-arrest bail order.
Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. In the case in hand, there are allegations of laundering the proceeds of the crime. The Enforcement Directorate claims to have certain specific inputs from various sources, including overseas banks. Letter rogatory is also said to have been issued and some response have been received by the department. Having regard to the nature of allegations and the stage of the investigation, in our view, the investigating agency has to be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation. Though we do not endorse the approach of the learned Single Judge in extracting the note produced by the Enforcement Directorate, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant will hamper the investigation and this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Appeal is dismissed
