M. Gopal Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement
In the High Court of Telangana
Crl. P. 1148/2021
Before Justice G. Sri. Devi
Decided on March 02, 2021

Relevancy of the Case: Anticipatory bail application in a case involving money laundering through modifying the tender bids by hacking the e-procurement portal

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 438)
• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471)
• The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Section 3, 4, 19, 24, 45)
• The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Section 7, 13(1), 13(2))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The allegations against the petitioner state his involvement in money laundering with the help of hacking. The petitioner, in collusion with others, hacked into the e-procurement portal of Madhya Pradesh Water Corporation. They gained unauthorised access through digital signature certificates (DSCs).
• The respondent has issued a summons against the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner seeks a grant of anticipatory bail.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was not an accused in the FIR. Moreover, he was not in the relevant department when the offence occurred. The respondent was trying to falsely implicate him in this crime.
• The respondent’s counsel explained why the agency had summoned the petitioner. Granting anticipatory bail would likely affect the petitioner’s coordination with the agency. Moreover, mere receipt of summons does not constitute valid grounds for anticipatory bail. The court can invoke its powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only in exceptional cases. There is no warrant in law to interfere with the statutory powers of arrest of the Directorate of Enforcement. Money laundering is a serious offence, so the court should not pass a blanket order for anticipatory bail.

Opinion of the Bench

• The petitioner had a reasonable apprehension of arrest in his mind, as the respondent had reasons to declare his involvement in the matter.
• His involvement did not have an impact on society. This forms the valid ground for the grant of anticipatory bail to safeguard his personal liberty and fundamental rights.

Final Decision

• The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.