Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2020 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 785 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Bribery - tainted money of scheduled offence of corruption in mining department of the State Government of Rajasthan - offence under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- Without making any comment on its order, suffice it to note the relevant legal position expounded in above referred judgments that while granting or refusing bail to an accused in a particular case, the role of every accused in the alleged crime along with other relevant factors are to be considered. A particular accused cannot claim to be released on bail only on the ground of grant of bail to other co-accused person. Accordingly even the same bench in a given case grants bail to an accused and refuses to another one having different footings. In the instant case, other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate bench of this court but the case of present applicants is not similar to those co-accused persons looking to their major role in the alleged crime, the evidence collected against them, their conduct of evading trial and other relevant factors. Without expressing any opinion to the merits of the case,suffice it to say that the record of the case prima facie reveals that being Principle Secretary of Mining Department, accused Ashok Singhvi has been main kingpin of the conspiracy, in furtherance of which a huge amount of ₹ 2.55 crores was collected as bribe. Ample evidence including telephone recording, call details is available on the record which very well connects him with the crime. In view of settled legal position and the fact of finality of cognizance order in this case, such contentions of applicants are not tenable that they are entitled for bail due to bail in scheduled offence or they were not arrested during the course of investigation - the case of both the present accused applicants cannot be said to be similar to that of those co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail by coordinate bench of this court, therefore, keeping in view the specific major role of the present accused applicants, strong evidence available against them, their conduct to evade the trial, probable impact on the Society on granting bail to present accused applicants having distinct status in this economic offence of severe nature of rampant corruption in Government departments and all other relevant factors as envisaged in PML Act, both the present applicants do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Bail application dismissed.
|