Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Corporate Law

Supreme Court Grants Bail in ₹8.87 Crore PMLA Case Despite ED Objections

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2024 taxguru.in 6454
Case Name
Peeyush Jain Vs Enforcement Director (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number
Premium Access
Date of Judgement/Order
Premium Access
Subscribe to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Advertisement

Peeyush Jain Vs Enforcement Director (Supreme Court of India)

Summary: The Supreme Court granted bail to Peeyush Jain in proceedings arising under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), setting aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order dated 11 June 2024 refusing bail. The appellant faced allegations concerning approximately ₹8.87 crore credited to his bank accounts, which the Enforcement Directorate alleged had not been satisfactorily explained. The proceedings originated from an investigation concerning alleged irregularities and bribery connected with government contracts involving firms associated with the appellant’s family. The Supreme Court, comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Pankaj Mithal, considered the circumstances of the prosecution and the fact that the complaint had already been filed before the jurisdictional court. The Court concluded that the particular facts justified granting bail, without expressing a final opinion on the allegations.

The underlying proceedings arose from FIR No. 215/2023 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau concerning alleged offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations concerned payments allegedly made to public officials in connection with the processing of bills relating to works undertaken by Shyam Tubewell Company and Ganpati Tubewell Company. The Enforcement Directorate registered an Enforcement Case Information Report on 21 August 2023 under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. Peeyush Jain was subsequently arrested on 29 February 2024. The agency alleged that substantial amounts had been transferred from the accounts of the concerned firms to the appellant’s accounts and that the transactions were connected with the alleged proceeds of crime. The appellant disputed these allegations and maintained that the transfers did not establish his participation in any scheduled offence or money-laundering activity.

Want to Read the Complete Judgment?

You have read the free case summary. Unlock the full judgment, the detailed judicial reasoning and the downloadable PDF, along with every other premium judgment on TaxGuru.

Read on with Premium
Goes straight to payment. GST invoice included.

One subscription covers the entire premium judgment library, not just this case.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: Graduate, CA in Job / Business, DD
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 24,000

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.