The Supreme Court has held that accused under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot be held in custody if order taking cognizance of ED complaint is quashed.
The bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has observed that the appellant is in custody from 8th August, 2024. Order taking cognizance passed by the Special Court has been set aside by the High Court and by acting upon the order of the High Court, a fresh application has been moved by the respondent for taking cognizance. The application is yet to be heard by the Special Court.
The appellant was arrested on 8th August, 2024. A supplementary complaint under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) was filed naming the appellant as an accused on 5th October, 2024. Cognizance was taken by the Special Court. The order taking cognizance was challenged by the appellant before the High Court.
The High Court by judgment has set aside the cognizance order and has granted liberty to the respondent to proceed again after obtaining a sanction. An application has been moved by the respondent before the Special Court for taking cognizance by relying upon sanction granted.
Though a complaint was filed on 5th October 2024, an order taking cognizance is not in existence. The respondent has acted upon order dated 7th February, 2025 by making application dated 7th February, 2025 before the Special Court, requesting the Court to take cognizance. Now, the Special Court will have to examine the case again. As there is a sanction, the issue to be considered will be whether the sanction is valid. All this will have to be examined by the Special Court.
The court held that as there are serious allegations against the appellant, appropriate stringent terms and conditions can be imposed by the Special Court.
The court directed the ED to produce the appellant before the Special Court within a period of one week from today. The Special Court shall enlarge the appellant on bail, pending the complaint, subject to stringent terms and conditions, including the condition of surrender of passport. Another condition will be of appellant furnishing undertaking to the Special Court stating that, in case, cognizance of the complaint is taken, he will regularly and punctually attend the Special Court and shall cooperate with the Special Court for the early disposal of the case. In the event, it is found that the appellant is not cooperating with the Special Court, it will be open for respondent to apply for cancellation of bail.
Case Details
Case Title: Arun Pati Tripathi Versus Directorate Of Enforcement
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.725 Of 2025
Date: 12th February, 2025
Counsel For Appellant: Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv.
Counsel For Respondent: Suryaprakash V.raju, A.S.G.
