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.
The ED counsel opposed the plea, saying the accused should have first approached the sessions court for the relief. He further said the accused has failed to join the investigation and was not cooperating despite issuance of repeated summonses.
The ED counsel submitted that this case involves serious allegations of money laundering and requires a detailed investigation into the trail of the alleged proceeds of crime.
It was contended that the petitioner’s personal presence was necessary for effective collection of evidence, confrontation with documentary and digital material and eliciting information within his exclusive knowledge. Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would seriously impede the investigation, the counsel said.
The High Court, while dismissing the anticipatory bail plea, said that the material placed on record, at this stage, traces proceeds of crime amounting to around ₹26.18 crore to the petitioner.
It noted that despite the summons issued on various dates requiring the petitioner’s personal appearance, neither he nor any of his authorised representatives appeared before the ED.
Instead, one written reply was furnished through his counsel, which, in the opinion of this court, reflects an attempt to avoid the process of inquiry initiated by the probe agency, Justice Jain said.
“In view of the aforesaid material, this court finds that the condition required under the PMLA is not satisfied and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him,” the court said.
“The material placed on record, including the petitioner’s conduct, the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, the financial trail and the analysis of the bank accounts, discloses sufficient material, at this stage, connecting the petitioner with the alleged proceeds of crime. The present application for anticipatory bail is, therefore, dismissed,” it said.
Published – August 22, 2026 01:12 pm IST
