Controversial Bail Acceptance for M3M Promoters Despite Legal Bar

The Special Judge in Panchkula, Haryana, accepted bonds under Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. for M3M India promoters, Basant and Pankaj Bansal, despite opposition citing Section 45 PMLA. The court's decision followed lengthy deliberations and referenced a recent Supreme Court ruling.

The Special Judge in Panchkula, Haryana, has accepted bonds under Section 88 of the Codage of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for the promoters of M3M India Private Limited, Basant Bansal and Pankaj Bansal. This decision comes despite opposition citing the restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The bonds were accepted in relation to an Enforcement Directorate case stemming from allegations of illegal gratification given for favorable judicial orders.

On February 23, 2024, the Bansal's appeared before the Special Court (PMLA) in Panchkula, upon summons issued on February 20, 2024. The court granted them interim protection from arrest. Following prolonged arguments from both sides, on July 9, the Special PMLA Judge accepted the bonds, referencing their compliance with a recent Supreme Court judgment in 'Tarsem Lal Vs Directorate of Enforcement.'

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, representing the Bansals, argued that the chargesheet was filed without arrest and that the Bansals had cooperated fully with the investigation, meeting all court summons. He added that the recent Supreme Court ruling implies that there was no need for bail or bonds. The Special Public Prosecutor contested, arguing the Supreme Court decision should apply only to future cases and noted that the Bansals were previously arrested. Aggarwal countered that the apex court had deemed the Bansals' arrest illegal, effectively nullifying their arrest status.