M3M bribery case: Court accepts promotors’ Bond filed under section 88 CrPC

Panchkula (Haryana) [India], July 12 (ANI): The Special Judge (PMLA), Panchkula, Haryana, has accepted bond under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, despite the bar under Section 45 PMLA, 2002, of the promoters of M3M India Private Limited, namely Basant Bansal and Pankaj Bansal, in relation to the ECIR registered based on the predicate offence registered by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Panchkula, Haryana, wherein there were allegations that illegal gratification was given to a Special Judge for seeking favourable orders.

Earlier on February 23, 2024, Bansals appeared before the Special Court (PMLA), Panchkula, in compliance with the summons issued by the court on February 20, 2024, directing their appearance, wherein the court granted interim protection from arrest to the Bansal’s.

Special PMLA Judge on July 9, after taking into consideration the lengthy arguments flown from both sides, accepted bonds under Section 88 Cr.P.C. furnished by Bansal’s despite the bar under Section 45 PMLA, 2002.

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for the Bansal’s argued that in the present case, the Chargesheet against the Bansal’s was filed without arrest and that they have joined and cooperated in the investigation and further have appeared before the court in compliance of the summons. Therefore, they are squarely covered by the recent judgment passed by the Apex Court in “Tarsem Lal Vs Directorate of Enforcement”.

Advocate Aggarwal further submitted that there is no necessity of even applying for bail or furnishing bonds by the Bansal’s on their appearance before the Court in terms of the recent judgment passed by the apex Court.

Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Enforcement Directorate opposed the submission of Advocate Aggarwal and submitted that the recent law passed by the Apex Court should be applied prospectively and since the bail applications of the Bansal’s were filed before the judgment was passed by the apex Court therefore the benefit of the judgment cannot be extended to the Bansals.

Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Bansal’s were arrested during the investigation and they cannot take the plea that they were never arrested at the time of filing of the chargesheet. To the said objection of the Enforcement Directorate, Adv Aggarwal rebutted that though Bansal’s were arrested by the Enforcement Directorate however their arrest was declared illegal by the apex court and the arrest having been declared illegal, is no arrest in the eyes of law and it shall be taken as if, the Bansal’s were never arrested and hence the charge-sheet is filed without arrest.