The appellant was arrested on 25th March, 2015 in relation to an offence alleged to have been committed under Section-3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. (hereinafter Referred to as "PMLA"). The appellant i

For the purposes of deciding the issue whether Appellant, Chairman of XYZ Real Estate Construction Ltd. arrested in relation to offence alleged to have been committed under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, is entitled for Bail, following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gautam Kundu vs. Manoj Kumar Assistant Director, DOE, Criminal Appeal No. 1706 of 2015 is relevant. In the aforesaid case of Gautam Kundu, bail was sought under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on behalf of the Appellant for floating as many as 27 companies and monies collected through front company was routed through these companies. Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal and rejected the bail application for the following reasons. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. At this stage we refrained ourselves from deciding the questions tried to be raised at this stage since it is nothing but a bail application. We cannot forget that this case is relating to "Money Laundering" which we feel is a serious threat to the national economy and national interest. We cannot brush aside the fact that the schemes have been prepared in a calculative manner with a deliberative design and motive of personal gain, regardless of the consequence to the members of the society. We note that admittedly the complaint is filed against the appellant on the allegations of committing the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that no offence under Section 24 of the SEBI Act is made out against the appellant, which is a scheduled offence under the PMLA, needs to be considered from the materials collected during the investigation by the respondents. There is no order as yet passed by a competent court of law, holding that no offence is made out against the appellant under Section 24 of the SEBI Act and it would be noteworthy that a criminal revision praying for quashing the proceedings initiated against the appellant under Section 24 of SEBI Act is still pending for hearing before the High Court. We have noted that Section 45 of the PMLA will have overriding effect on the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of conflict between them. As mentioned earlier, Section 45 of the PMLA imposes two conditions for grant of bail, specified under the said Act. We have not missed the proviso to Section 45 of the said Act which indicates that the legislature has carved out an exception for grant of bail by a Special Court when any person is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is a sick or infirm. Therefore, there is no doubt that the conditions laid down under Section 45A of the PMLA, would bind the High Court as the provisions of special law having overriding effect on the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to any person accused of committing offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, even when the application for bail is considered under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We cannot brush aside the fact that the appellant floated as many as 27 companies to allure the investors to invest in their different companies on a promise of high returns and funds were collected from the public at large which were subsequently laundered in associated companies of Rose Valley Group and were used for purchasing moveable and immoveable properties. We have further noted that the High Court at the time of refusing the bail application, duly considered this fact and further considered the statement of the Assistant General Manager of RBI, Kolkata, seizure list, statements of directors of Rose Valley, statements of officer bearers of Rose Valley, statements of debenture trustees of Rose Valley, statements of debenture holders of Rose Valley, statements of AGM of Accounts of Rose Valley and statements of Regional Managers of Rose Valley for formation of opinion whether the appellant is involved in the offence of money laundering. In these circumstances, we do not find that the High Court has exercised its discretion capriciously or arbitrarily in the facts and circumstances of this case. We further note that the High Court has called for all the relevant papers and duly taken note of that and thereafter after satisfying its conscience, refused the bail. Therefore, we do not find that the High Court has committed any wrong in refusing bail in the given circumstances. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order so passed by the High Court and the bail, as prayed before us, challenging the said order is refused. Consequently the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gautam Kundu vs. Manoj Kumar Assistant Director, DOE , it appears that the Appellant being Chairman of XYZ Real Estate Construction Ltd. will not be entitled for Bail.