A prosecution has been sanctioned against me under the Black Money Act. Can I get anticipatory bail?
On these facts, yes. The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to a taxpayer facing prosecution under ss.50 and 51 of the Black Money Act in respect of an undeclared Singapore bank account holding USD 6,856,092.67, on a personal bond of Rs 5,00,000 with one surety, subject to surrender of his passport and availability for interrogation. The Court gave no reasons for the grant.
Decided by the High Court (Pramod Kumar Agrawal J) on 2024-07-03, reported as MCRC No. 10067 of 2024 (Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur). It bears on section BMA s.50, section BMA s.51(1), section BMA s.51(2), section BMA s.59 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Prosecution matters.
Black Money Act prosecutions carry imprisonment of up to seven years and anticipatory bail is often the first application a practitioner has to make. This is the only decided order located granting it, and it records the conditions the Court thought appropriate.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The Income Tax Department alleged that the applicant was the key person of a group and that a Singapore bank account held USD 6,856,092.67, valued at Rs 48,84,28,041.81, which he had not declared as an undisclosed foreign asset, the income having been routed through a company said to be a shell (paras 10 and 11). The department said that when confronted with documents he accepted that he was a director of the company and had opened the bank account (para 11). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) gave permission for prosecution by order dated 12 February 2018 and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) passed a detailed order according sanction for launching prosecution (paras 5 and 6). The applicant contended that ss.50 and 51 require wilfulness, that the account was closed on 4 June 2014 before the Act came into force, and that sanction had been accorded on a misunderstanding of the legal position (paras 7 and 8). He further submitted that the Directorate of Enforcement had filed a complaint in the Court of the Special Judge, PMLA and 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in which that Court had granted him bail on 20 May 2024, and relied on Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office, Cr.A. No. 2609 of 2024 (Supreme Court, 16 May 2024), for the proposition that where a complaint is filed without prior arrest the accused should not normally be arrested without the Court's permission (para 9).
Anticipatory bail was granted. The Court recorded that after hearing counsel and perusing the material and evidence on record it was inclined to grant anticipatory bail, and allowed the application (para 14). The applicant was directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs 5,00,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount (para 15), subject to conditions that he make himself available for interrogation by the Income Tax Department as and when required, refrain from any inducement, threat or promise to the complainant or witnesses, not leave India without the permission of the trial court and surrender his passport to that court, and not commit a similar offence (para 16).
The Court set out the rival contentions at length - the applicant's case on wilfulness, on the closure of the account on 4 June 2014 and on the reach of the Act, and the department's case on the size of the account, the applicant's admissions and the deeming provision under which an undisclosed asset is charged in the previous year in which it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer - and then granted the application in a single sentence. No reasons are given for preferring one set of contentions over the other.
Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant, hence application is allowed.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppOn these facts, yes. The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to a taxpayer facing prosecution under ss.50 and 51 of the Black Money Act in respect of an undeclared Singapore bank account holding USD 6,856,092.67, on a personal bond of Rs 5,00,000 with one surety, subject to surrender of his passport and availability for interrogation. The Court gave no reasons for the grant. This was decided by the High Court (Pramod Kumar Agrawal J) and bears on section BMA s.50, section BMA s.51(1), section BMA s.51(2), section BMA s.59 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as MCRC No. 10067 of 2024 (Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur). Black Money Act prosecutions carry imprisonment of up to seven years and anticipatory bail is often the first application a practitioner has to make. This is the only decided order located granting it, and it records the conditions the Court thought appropriate. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Apply for anticipatory bail as soon as sanction is accorded; do not wait for process to issue.
The Income Tax Department alleged that the applicant was the key person of a group and that a Singapore bank account held USD 6,856,092.67, valued at Rs 48,84,28,041.81, which he had not declared as an undisclosed foreign asset, the income having been routed through a company said to be a shell (paras 10 and 11). The department said that when confronted with documents he accepted that he was a director of the company and had opened the bank account (para 11). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) gave permission for prosecution by order dated 12 February 2018 and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) passed a detailed order according sanction for launching prosecution (paras 5 and 6). The applicant contended that ss.50 and 51 require wilfulness, that the account was closed on 4 June 2014 before the Act came into force, and that sanction had been accorded on a misunderstanding of the legal position (paras 7 and 8). He further submitted that the Directorate of Enforcement had filed a complaint in the Court of the Special Judge, PMLA and 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in which that Court had granted him bail on 20 May 2024, and relied on Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office, Cr.A. No. 2609 of 2024 (Supreme Court, 16 May 2024), for the proposition that where a complaint is filed without prior arrest the accused should not normally be arrested without the Court's permission (para 9). The matter was decided on 2024-07-03 by the High Court (Pramod Kumar Agrawal J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. Anticipatory bail was granted. The Court recorded that after hearing counsel and perusing the material and evidence on record it was inclined to grant anticipatory bail, and allowed the application (para 14). The applicant was directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs 5,00,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount (para 15), subject to conditions that he make himself available for interrogation by the Income Tax Department as and when required, refrain from any inducement, threat or promise to the complainant or witnesses, not leave India without the permission of the trial court and surrender his passport to that court, and not commit a similar offence (para 16).
The Court set out the rival contentions at length - the applicant's case on wilfulness, on the closure of the account on 4 June 2014 and on the reach of the Act, and the department's case on the size of the account, the applicant's admissions and the deeming provision under which an undisclosed asset is charged in the previous year in which it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer - and then granted the application in a single sentence. No reasons are given for preferring one set of contentions over the other. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant, hence application is allowed."
It was decided by the High Court on 2024-07-03 and is reported as MCRC No. 10067 of 2024 (Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section BMA s.50, section BMA s.51(1), section BMA s.51(2), section BMA s.59, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. Anticipatory bail was granted. The Court recorded that after hearing counsel and perusing the material and evidence on record it was inclined to grant anticipatory bail, and allowed the application (para 14). The applicant was directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs 5,00,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount (para 15), subject to conditions that he make himself available for interrogation by the Income Tax Department as and when required, refrain from any inducement, threat or promise to the complainant or witnesses, not leave India without the permission of the trial court and surrender his passport to that court, and not commit a similar offence (para 16). It arises in Prosecution matters, on section BMA s.50, section BMA s.51(1), section BMA s.51(2), section BMA s.59 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Pramod Kumar Agrawal J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Put the retrospectivity argument on record - that the Act charges from assessment year 2016-17 and that an account closed before 1 July 2015 raises a question on the offence. Expect a passport condition and a continuing obligation to attend for interrogation; plan foreign travel around it. Where a complaint has been filed without prior arrest, plead Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement (SC, 16 May 2024), which the applicant relied on here: the accused should not normally be arrested without the Court's permission. If a court has already granted bail on the same facts in a connected prosecution - here the PMLA Special Court at Bhopal - put that order before the Court.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No later decision applying, following or doubting this order was located, and nothing was found on whether the bail was later cancelled or the prosecution disposed of. Being an order on anticipatory bail with no reasons, its value is as a record of what was granted and on what conditions, not as a precedent on any question of law under the Black Money Act. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The Court decided nothing on the validity of the sanction under s.55, although the applicant argued that sanction had been accorded on a misunderstanding of the law and although the order records both the permission of 12 February 2018 and the later sanction order. It also decided nothing on the retrospectivity argument, and nothing on Tarsem Lal, which was the applicant's principal legal plank. Paragraph 14 contains the entire decision and gives no reasons. The deposit figure at para 11 is printed as 'Rs.44,22,022,00/-', which is not a well formed number, and has not been reproduced in the entry. A later reading of the order corrected two things this entry first got wrong: the Judge is named in the signature block as '(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL) JUDGE', so the earlier statement that the coram could not be established has been removed, and para 9 records that bail was granted on 20 May 2024 by the Special Judge, PMLA and 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, on a complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement, and not by the Directorate of Enforcement itself as this entry first said. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Anticipatory bail was granted. The Court recorded that after hearing counsel and perusing the material and evidence on record it was inclined to grant anticipatory bail, and allowed the application (para 14). The applicant was directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs 5,00,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount (para 15), subject to conditions that he make himself available for interrogation by the Income Tax Department as and when required, refrain from any inducement, threat or promise to the complainant or witnesses, not leave India without the permission of the trial court and surrender his passport to that court, and not commit a similar offence (para 16).
TaxSphere, “Sanjay Vijay Shinde v DGIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/sanjay-vijay-shinde-v-dgit-bma-50-anticipatory-bail/ (validity last checked 2026-09-16)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The assessment under the Black Money Act is not complete, and may now be time-barred. Can they still summon me on a s.51 complaint?
The department says the Black Money Act applies to my foreign account from July 2015. Is that retrospective?
My foreign company was struck off and the bank account closed years before the Black Money Act commenced. Can they still prosecute me for it?
The sanction for my prosecution covers a Black Money Act offence too. Can I get the whole complaint quashed for want of a valid s.55 sanction?
