Case: KIRAN PRAKASH KULKARNI Vs. THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR

1. A First Information Report was registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 409, 420, 477A and 120B read with 34 IPC on 15.12.2015. Thereafter, Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA Act?) was registered against the petitioner on 12.1.2016 in which the charge sheet was filed on 16.4.2016. The petitioner was granted bail in the predicate offences on 10.5.2016 after being in jail for a period of five months. The petitioner was arrested again on 18.6.2018 for the offences under the PMLA Act. The application for bail filed by the petitioner was rejected by the High Court on 22.12.2018.2. On a careful scrutiny of the judgment of the High Court, we find that the law laid down by this Court on the constitutional validity of Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act in ?Nikesh Tarachand Shah versus Union of India? reported in 2018 (11) SCC 1 , has not been taken into account. After a detailed discussion on the facts, the High Court opined that prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and, so, he was not entitled for bail.3. We have considered the material available on record and the submissions made by Mr. Fali S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. The petitioner was in jail for five months in the predicate offences. A charge sheet has been filed in the case registered under the PMLA Act, though, the learned Additional Solicitor General says that further investigation is in progress.

Decision:
1[ds]2. On a careful scrutiny of the judgment of the High Court, we find that the law laid down by this Court on the constitutional validity of Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act in ?Nikesh Tarachand Shah versus Union of India? reported in 2018 (11) SCC 1 , has not been taken into account. After a detailed discussion on the facts, the High Court opined that prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and, so, he was not entitled for bail3. We have considered the material available on record and the submissions made by Mr. Fali S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. The petitioner was in jail for five months in the predicate offences. A charge sheet has been filed in the case registered under the PMLA Act, though, the learned Additional Solicitor General says that further investigation is in progress.