Protection in predicate offence doesn't automatically extend to PMLA case: Delhi High Court

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Image used for representational purposes only. | Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma

The Delhi High Court has held that protection granted in a predicate offence FIR does not mean it extends to distinct and independent proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The High Court made the observation while denying anticipatory bail to a businessman facing prosecution in a PMLA case.

It refused to accept the petitioner's contention that his apprehension of arrest must be considered in the backdrop of the protection granted to him by the Supreme Court in the predicate offence FIR.

"The protection granted in the predicate offence operates in the context of the said FIR and cannot, by itself, be construed as extending to the distinct and independent proceedings under the PMLA.

"The petitioner cannot claim pre-arrest protection in the present proceedings merely on the ground that such protection has been granted to him in the predicate offence," Justice Madhu Jain said in the August 18 order.

Economic offences constitute a distinct class of offences and, therefore, call for a different approach while considering a prayer for bail, the court said.

"Such offences, particularly where they involve deep-rooted conspiracies and substantial financial implications, have serious repercussions on the economic interests of society and the financial health of the country.

"The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised the need to adopt a serious approach while considering bail in matters involving economic offences," it said.

Petitioner Ram Singh of Babaji Finance Group was seeking anticipatory bail in a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

After conducting a search at the accused's house in Delhi, the ED had recorded reasons to believe that the petitioner was the key conspirator in the money laundering case.

Mr. Singh's counsel submitted that the allegations constituting the scheduled offences primarily relate to cheating, inducement, forged documents and transactions concerning SARFAESI properties, with the principal allegations being against co-accused persons.

He said there was no allegation in the predicate offences that the petitioner induced any complainant to part with money, forged any document, participated in the alleged property transactions or personally committed any act constituting the scheduled offence.