NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Ankit Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
1. The anticipatory bail applications have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Complaint No. ECIR/JPZO/02/2014 dated 21.10.2014 for the offence(s) under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act and against the order dated 08.12.2021 passed by Special Judge, CBI Cases No. 3 Jaipur Metropolitan-I in bail application No. 35/2021 whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Name of the petitioners are not mentioned in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that main accused Mohit Sharma was enlarged on bail by co-ordinate bench and co-accused Mahesh Sharma was enlarged on bail by Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners. Trial Court after taking cognizance against the petitioners, wrongly summoned the petitioners by way of arrest warrants. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required. So, petitioners be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
3.
Gautam Kundu v. E.D. (2015) 16 SCC 1
Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal
P. Chidambaram v. E.D. (2019) 9 SCC 24
Pramod Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. (2008) 9 SCC 685
State of Gujarat v. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal
Union of India v. Cipla Ltd. (2017) 5 SCC 262
Virupakshappa Gouda & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (2017) 5 SCC 406
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.