Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
JASMEET SINGH
Sanjay Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application background and factual context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments against the legality of the fir and call recording. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. prosecution's narrative which defines involvement in crime. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. violation of privacy and regulatory requirements. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 5. elements of scheduled offences and bail considerations. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 6. legal reasoning regarding applicability of ipc and pmla. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 7. determining nature of relationships and alleged misconduct. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72) |
| 8. conditions for bail under pmla. (Para 73 , 74 , 75) |
| 9. assessment of likelihood of ongoing criminal activity. (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83) |
| 10. conclusion on bail application. (Para 84 , 85 , 86 , 87) |
JUDGMENT
Jasmeet Singh, J.
1. This is BAIL APPLN. 2409/2022 to enlarge the applicant on regular bail in ECIR/DLZO-I/28/2022 registered on the basis of FIR bearing RC No. 2212022E0030
Lawfulness of call recording activities requires consent; absence of dishonest intent under IPC prevents cognizable charges, and no proceeds of crime established under PMLA.
The court found that the scheduled offences alleged against the applicant were not established, and therefore, the provisions of PMLA could not be attracted to the present case. The court granted bai....
Test of admissibility of evidence lies in its relevancy, unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law evidence obtained as a result of illegal search....
The court upheld the sufficiency of the CBI's investigation and action, emphasizing the absence of justification for monitoring the trial.
The judgment emphasizes the need to balance personal liberty with the security of the community, considering the gravity of the alleged economic offences and the period of sentence.
The court affirmed that legal interception of telephonic conversations is permissible under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act for serious offences, and justified the condonation of a 22-day de....
Point of Law : When the allegations against an accused do not constitute an offence, even if such allegations are presumed to be true, a Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code to....
The court established that while the charges are serious, the evidence collected does not necessitate continued detention, leading to the granting of bail under stringent conditions for accountabilit....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
