The Supreme Court in its recent judgment has held that the investigation for the predicated offences and the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act are different and distinct.

The Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar while dealing with a Criminal Appeal seeking cancellation of bail order held that "Merely because for the predicated offences the chargesheet might have been filed it cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail in connection with the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002."

The Directorate of Enforcement had approached the Apex Court challenging the order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad which had granted bail to one Aditya Tripathi accused under Sections of the Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Act, 2000, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in connection with Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Impugning the order passed, appearing for the ED, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj submitted that the High Court erred in appreciating Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 and the seriousness of offences under this act. The ASG further argued that the High Court granted bail only on the fact that the investigation has been completed and the chargesheet has been filed but the High Court failed in appreciating the fact that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate is still going on and therefore, it was wrong to say that the investigation has been completed.

On the other hand, appearing for Respondent No. 1, Senior Advocates Rakesh Khanna and Aman Lekhi submitted that as the impugned FIR is concerned i.e., for the predicated offences others accused have been acquitted/discharged and that as the investigation is over and the chargesheet has been filed, the High Court has rightly enlarged the accused on bail. They further argued that the accused are on bail since March 2021, and the bail order may not be interfered with.

The Supreme Court noted that the investigation against the accused by the ED is still ongoing and the High Court did not consider the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002. The Bench further noted that there are very serious allegations of money laundering which are required to be investigated thoroughly.

Considering the facts of the present case, the Bench in its judgement held merely because the other accused are acquitted/discharged, it cannot be a ground not to continue the investigation in respect of respective respondent No. 1 and that the enquiry/investigation for the scheduled offences itself is sufficient at this stage.

Further, finding that the investigation of predicated offences and the investigation by the ED for the scheduled offences under the PML Act are different and distinct, the Court held that "Merely because for the predicated offences the chargesheet might have been filed it cannot be ground to release the accused on bail in connection with the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002"

The Court also held that as the investigation by the ED for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 was ongoing, the High Court's consideration was irrelevant and that they even further failed to consider the rigour of Section 45 and the seriousness of the offences alleged against accused for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the bail order passed by the High Court and asked Respondent No.1 to surrender before the Jail Authority. The Supreme Court also remitted back the matter to the High Court to consider the bail applications afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

Cause Title: Directorate Of Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi [Crl.A. No. 001401 / 2023]

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice MR ShahJustice CT RavikumarPrevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)Section 45 of PMLA

Ramey Krishan Rana