Naresh Goyal vs Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai Zone II Office

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Bom) 1187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J.Jamadar
Naresh Goyal – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai Zone II Office – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Harish Salve, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ameet Naik, Mr. Abhishek Kale, Ms. Yugandhara Jha, Mr. Harish Khedkar, Mr. Aditya Ajgaonkar, Mr. Parikshith K., Ms. Anjali Sharma i/by Naik Naik and Co.
For the Respondent: Mr. H.S.Vengaonkar with Mr. Aayush Kedia, Mrs. Ranjana D. Humane, APP, IO Sudhanshu Srivastava, Asstt. Director, ED present.

ORDER :

N.J. Jamadar, J.

1. The applicant, who is arraigned in Special Case No.1728 of 2023 arising out of ECIR/MBZO-II/29/2023 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent No.1 for having committed offences punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) on the basis of a predicate offence bearing FIR No.RC0742023E0004 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 409 of IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(2) read with 13(1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at CBI, BS&FB Delhi, has preferred this application for bail on medical ground.

2. The application proceeds on the premise that the applicant and his wife, Anita, suffer from terminal cancer. The applicant is both sick and infirm, and, therefore, covered by the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. As the applicant seeks to be enlarged on bail by invoking the first proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA on medical grounds, it may not be necessary to note the background facts, elaborately.

3. It may be suffice to note that the allegations in FIR No.RC0742023E0004 are that the applicant in connivance with the other accused persons deceived Banks by sip