High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in PMLA Case Over Non-Cooperation:

High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in PMLA Case Over Non-Cooperation The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a money laundering case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, arising from a large-scale financial fraud involving mobilisation of huge public funds through investment schemes. The investigation revealed that funds were allegedly diverted through various entities, including overseas companies linked to the applicant. It was alleged that she was associated with entities that handled proceeds of crime, including acquisition of foreign assets and receipt of income from such properties.

Also Read

High Court Upholds Injunction, Ruling ‘TULSI’ Use Infringes ‘TULASI’ Trademark Due To Deceptive Similarity.

The Enforcement Directorate claimed that despite multiple notices, the applicant did not initially cooperate with the investigation. Even when she appeared under interim protection, her responses were found to be evasive. It was further alleged that she made inconsistent statements and attempted to influence witnesses and interfere with recovery of evidence. Central Issue: Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under PMLA where the accused is alleged to be non-cooperative, evasive, and interfering with investigation. HC Held,: The High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail, holding that the case did not warrant such exceptional relief. The Court noted that the applicant’s conduct during investigation raised serious concerns, including inconsistent statements and lack of cooperation. It also took into account allegations of attempts to influence witnesses and obstruct the investigation.

Also Read

High Court Refers Anticipatory Bail Maintainability Issue to Larger Bench

Emphasising the seriousness of the offence, the Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the flow of funds and uncover the full extent of the transactions. It further clarified that anticipatory bail in such cases cannot be granted routinely, especially when the investigation requires deeper scrutiny. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below