Concession Of Pre-Arrest Bail Misused: Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Regular Bail In PMLA Case After Accused Sold Properties Attached By ED
The Punjab and Haryana High Court denied regular bail to an accused who sold properties attached by the ED in a money laundering case, which violated a condition imposed by an earlier order granting him pre-arrest bail.
The Court stated that the accused, who claimed to not be well versed in the English language as he had just studied till Class 3rd, had misused the concession of the pre-arrest bail granted to him by the court for offences under Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act).
A Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed, “The petitioner misused the concession of pre-arrest bail and disregarded the directions of this Court and sold 2 properties…which were under attachment of the Office of Enforcement Directorate”
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Advocate Arvind Moudgil represented the respondent.
The accused was earlier granted pre-arrest bail by the High Court with conditions regarding his immovable properties. These properties were attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO). Despite the clear conditions of his bail, the accused sold the properties.
The bail cancellation order read as, “There is a serious and justified apprehension that if such concession is granted to the petitioner again, he would again violate the conditions whatsoever and may also thwart the process of trial.”
The current bail petition was the second petition filed by the accused after his previous regular bail application was rejected. His initial anticipatory bail was also cancelled by the trial court on December 1, 2020, for the violation of bail terms.
The High Court dismissed the accused’s submission that he was “hardly literate” and had studied only till Class 3rd, which found his claim of ignorance non-credible, given that he had already filed an appeal against the attachment of these properties.
“The above plea taken by the petitioner is not believable and is not credible, since sequence of events mentioned above shows the conduct of the petitioner. Had he genuinely been unaware of the conditional order issued by this Court on 28.02.2017, when pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner, he would have sold the entire property,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “This Court is of the view that the petitioner has willfully violated the conditions stipulated in the order...There are serious allegations against the petitioner and if the concession of regular bail is granted to him, there is an apprehension that he would again violate the conditions and will try to hamper the trial as well.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Harmesh Kumar Gaba v. Asstt. Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:116665-DB)
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary; Advocates Keshvam Chaudhary, Rishab Tewari and Diya Bhagwan
Respondent: Senior Advocate Arvind Moudgil; Advocates Jyotika Panesar, Naveen Kumar, Geetanjali Bhatia and Jaspreet Kaur
