ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Tarsem Lal – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office – Respondent
1. Leave granted.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. Since the issues involved are common and very little turns on facts, we broadly refer to the factual aspects. The appellants are the accused in complaints under Section 44 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘the PMLA’). The appellants have been denied the benefit of anticipatory bail by the impugned orders. We are dealing with the cases of the accused who were not arrested after registration of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) till the Special Court took cognizance under the PMLA of an offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. The cognizance was taken on the complaints filed under Section 44 (1)(b). These are the cases where the appellants did not appear before the Special Court after summons were served to them. The Special Court issued warrants for procuring their presence. After the warrants were issued, the appellants applied for anticipatory bail before the Special Court. The applications were rejected. Unsuccessful accused have preferred these appeals since the High Court has turned down their prayers. This Court, by interim orders, has protected the appellants from arrest.
SUBMISSIONS
3.
Ashok Munilal Jain and Another vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India and Others
Inder Mohan Goswami and Another vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others
Pankaj Jain vs. Union of India and Another
State of Kerala vs. Kandath Distilleries
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.