Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
Ankit Sharma – Petitioner
Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application Nos. 20436, 20437 of 2021
Decided On : 19-07-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Money Laundering - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Sections 3 and 4 - [3, 4] - The court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications in connection with a case involving serious economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, citing the principle of law enunciated by the Apex Court in P. Chidambaram's Case.
Fact of the Case:
The anticipatory bail applications were filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with a case involving offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated and argued against the need for their custodial interrogation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were involved in serious economic offences and cited the principle of law enunciated by the Apex Court in P. Chidambaram's Case, leading to the dismissal of the anticipatory bail applications.
Issues: The main issue revolved around whether the petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail in a case involving serious economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principle of law enunciated by the Apex Court in P. Chidambaram's Case, which emphasized the seriousness of economic offences and their impact on the nation's economy.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications, considering the seriousness of the economic offences involved.
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. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments of:
(1) Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 839 of 2020
(2) Amanpreet Singh v. CBI, MANU/SC/0599/2021
(3) Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, SLP Crl. No. 5191 of 2021, dated 28.07.2021
(4) Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, SLP Crl. No. 5191 of 2021, dated 07.10.2021
(5) Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, SLP Crl. No. 5191 of 2021, dated 16.12.2021
(6) Court on its own motion v. CBI, Crl. Misc. (M) No. 3875/2003
(7) Mohit Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement, SB Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14691/2020
(8) Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Sharad Kumar, SLP (Crl.) No. 2795/2021
(9) Manju Tanvar v. Union of India, SB Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12011/2019
(10) Deepa Heda v. Union of India, SB Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4619/2018
(11) Uma Charan Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, SB Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14530/2019
4. Learned Additional Solicitor General has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the bail applications are not maintainable. Petitioners had challenged the cognizance order which is pending. Learned Additional Solicitor General also submits that petitioners also filed the petition under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. for conversion of arrest warrant into bailable warrant but said application was dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is also pending. Learned Additional Solicitor General also submits that petitioners are involved in the commission of serious economic offence of money laundering. Learned Additional Solicitor General also submits that Apex Court in various pronouncements stated that economic offender runs parallel economic and it effect the economy of the nation. So, anticipatory bail should not be granted to the offenders. Learned Additional Solicitor General also submits that petitioners have active role with the co-accused. So, anticipatory bail be dismissed.
5. Learned Additional Solicitor General has placed reliance upon the following judgments:
(1) Rajkumar Daitapati v. Director Enforcement, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16124/2021 decided on 11.11.2021
(2) P. Chidambaram v. E.D. (2019) 9 SCC 24
(3) Tamanna Begum v. E.D. in S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4148/2020 decided on 01.06.2020
(4) Ambalal Punamchand Rashamwala v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 1991 SCC online Bom 676
(5) Jai Singh v. Union of India, (1977) 1 SCC 1
(6) Union of India v. Cipla Ltd. (2017) 5 SCC 262
(7) Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 1 SCC 722
(8) Sanatan Pandey v. State of U.P. SLP (Crl.) No. 7358/2021
(9) Manubhai Najbhai Dhandhal v. Commissioner of Police, Special Civil Application No. 9651/2009 decided on
AI
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
