Gurpreet Singh Sabharwal vs. Directorate Of Enforcement

Facts

The petitioner, Gurpreet Singh Sabharwal, sought pre-arrest bail in ECIR/CDZO-II/11/2022, registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The case stemmed from an FIR registered by the State Vigilance Bureau concerning alleged illegal mining activities by the petitioner's firm, M/s Tirupati Roadways. The FIR alleged that the firm extracted six times the permissible volume of material from a mining site, causing a loss of Rs. 35 crores to the Haryana government. The ED registered the ECIR treating the FIR offences as scheduled offences. The petitioner argued that the FIR and subsequent ECIR were based on a one-sided inquiry. He contended that trucks used for removing topsoil, which was given free to agriculturists, were mistakenly counted as material extracted for sale. The ED conducted searches and seized articles, and the petitioner's statement was recorded. The petitioner had previously approached the High Court challenging the FIR and the Adjudicating Authority's proceedings.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the investigation had progressed to a substantial extent, and the petitioner had supplied the required documents and answered all queries raised by the ED. It was observed that custodial interrogation several years after the institution of the case did not stand to any legal reason or justification. The Court found no material to suggest that the petitioner could influence witnesses, abscond, or hamper the investigation. Citing Section 65 of the PMLA, which makes Cr.P.C. provisions applicable where not inconsistent with PMLA, and referencing Supreme Court judgments in Satender Kumar Antil and Sanjay Chandra, the Court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the principle that bail is not punitive. The Court directed the petitioner's release on bail upon arrest, subject to conditions including cooperation with the ED, not tampering with evidence, not threatening witnesses, surrendering his passport, and providing contact details. The observations were made for the limited purpose of the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in ECIR/CDZO-II/11/2022 registered under the PMLA, considering the allegations of illegal mining and causing revenue loss to the government? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA and Section 438 Cr.P.C.). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the FIR and ECIR were based on arbitrary and one-sided inquiries. He contended that the excess truck movements were due to the removal of topsoil (mud/clay) which was given free to agriculturists and not part of the actual mineral extraction for sale. He also argued that the measurement report from HARSAC, Gurugram, lacked clarity on how the measurement was done and to what depth. Furthermore, he submitted that the investigation had progressed substantially, documents had been collected, and he had cooperated fully, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. He relied on the principles of bail as laid down by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that liberty is a fundamental right and detention before conviction should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (ED) did not explicitly record arguments against the bail application in the provided text. However, the registration of the ECIR and the subsequent actions like searches and filing applications before the Adjudicating Authority indicate their stance that the allegations warranted investigation and potential action under the PMLA.