Reasons Required for Denying Bail When Investigating Agency Refrains from Arrest Yet Trial Court Seeks Judicial Custody Upon Filing ECIR in PMLA Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The recent judgment by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of ‘Gurinder Pal Singh @ Tinku Vs. ED’ sheds light on the necessity of providing reasons for denying bail in cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Court emphasized that when the investigating agency refrains from arrest, but the trial court seeks judicial custody upon filing the complaint [ECIR], there must be substantive reasons provided for withholding bail.



The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is a crucial legislation aimed at combating financial crimes and ensuring the integrity of financial systems. In the recent case of ‘Gurinder Pal Singh @ Tinku Vs. ED’, the Punjab & Haryana High Court addressed the issue of anticipatory bail in PMLA cases, particularly concerning the necessity of providing reasons for denying bail when the investigating agency refrains from arrest.


Case Background:

The petitioner, Gurinder Pal Singh, challenged the dismissal of anticipatory bail by the trial court in a case filed U/s 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The allegations stemmed from an FIR lodged by Punjab’s Vigilance Bureau, implicating the petitioner and others in various offenses including corruption and money laundering.


Legal Analysis:

The Court scrutinized the statutory framework under the PMLA and relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). Notably, the offenses under investigation were listed in the schedule of the PMLA Act, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations.


Judicial Rationale:

The Court echoed the sentiment that offenses under the PMLA are often akin to the “tip of an iceberg”, suggesting underlying predicate crimes. It emphasized the necessity of tracing proceeds of crime to their origins, underscoring the seriousness of the allegations.


Key Precedents:

The Court drew upon precedent, notably the Supreme Court’s decision in ‘Rajesh Kumar Vs. The Directorate of Enforcement’, where bail was granted under the PMLA Act due to the investigating agency’s failure to arrest the accused during the investigation phase.



In light of the foregoing analysis and precedent, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be denied arbitrarily in PMLA cases. The court emphasized the importance of providing substantive reasons for withholding bail, particularly when the investigating agency refrains from arrest. The judgment underscores the principles of fairness and due process in the adjudication of financial crimes, ensuring that individuals are not unduly deprived of their liberty without just cause.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content may not reflect the most current legal developments and is not guaranteed to be accurate, complete, or up-to-date. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional before taking any action based on the information provided. The authors and publishers disclaim any liability for any loss or damage incurred as a result of reliance on this article. This article does not create an attorney-client relationship.

To Top

Disclaimer & Confirmation

As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, we are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. By clicking on “I Agree” below, the user acknowledges the following:
The user wishes to gain more information about us for his/her own information and use;
There has been no advertisement, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website;
The information about us is provided to the user only on his/her specific request and any information obtained or materials downloaded from this website is completely at the user’s volition and any transmission, receipt or use of this site would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
The information provided herein should not be interpreted as legal advice, for which the user must make independent inquiries.
Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the contents of this website, JurAce Legal LLP, disclaims all liability arising from reliance placed by the user or any other third party on the information contained or provided under this website.
All disputes, if any, relating to this website are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts in New Delhi, India only.