Evasive conduct and obstruction of investigation during interim protection disentitle an accused to anticipatory bail.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a money laundering case (ECIR/03/DLZO/2016) stemming from a 2014 CBI predicate offence involving the PACL/Pearl Group scam, which allegedly defrauded investors of over Rs. 48,000 crores

The petitioner, daughter of the main accused Nirmal Singh Bhangoo (deceased), served as a Director in various Australian and Indian entities (e.g., PAPL, Maurya Healthcare) allegedly used to siphon approximately Rs. 657.18 crore of proceeds of crime

Investigations revealed that the petitioner received rental income from properties purchased with PACL funds

During search operations on March 23, 2025, digital evidence emerged showing the petitioner instructed an associate, Manoj, via Facetime to withhold/destroy evidence

Although granted interim protection initially, the court withdrew it on May 9, 2025, after finding the petitioner evasive and discovery of a false affidavit filed by her regarding the Facetime call

The court applied Section 45 of the PMLA, which mandates "twin conditions" for bail—reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences

The proviso to Section 45 allows judicial discretion to grant bail to women, but held this is not an absolute right

The court relied on Assistant Director, ED v. Dr. V.C. Mohan, which establishes that Section 45 rigors apply to anticipatory bail

Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India, characterizing money laundering as a serious transnational offence

Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, which classifies economic offences as a "class apart" requiring a stringent approach to bail

Bhaskar Yadav v. ED, emphasizing that custodial interrogation is a more effective investigative tool than interrogation under interim protection

The court observed that while the petitioner is a woman, the statutory benefit of the Section 45 proviso cannot be extended where the accused's conduct is obstructive

The court found that the petitioner feigned ignorance of her directorships and fund sources during seven interrogation sessions while under interim protection

Crucially, the court noted that the petitioner filed a false affidavit denying the Facetime call to her associate, a claim contradicted by video evidence played in open court

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s "scant regard for law" and active attempts to "derail investigation" necessitated custodial interrogation

The court distinguished the petitioner’s case from her husband’s (who was granted regular bail), noting the husband had cooperated, whereas the petitioner gave false answers on oath

It concluded that custodial interrogation was essential to inventory assets for the Justice Lodha Committee to facilitate investor refunds

The court held that the need for custodial interrogation to unearth siphoned proceeds of crime outweighed the petitioner's arguments regarding her gender and family ties

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the anticipatory bail application and all pending applications