Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2021 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1412 - TELANGANA HIGH COURTSeeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - tampering with the e-Tender - price bid changed to make the lowest bidders - various tenders of different Government Departments were tampered and changed to price bid of specific Applicant Companies due to which, these companies became the lowest bidder and their tender got accepted and thus, these companies got undue benefits - HELD THAT:- A three Judges' Bench of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v.. State (N CT of Delhi) and others [2020 (1) TMI 1193 - SUPREME COURT] while dealing with the purpose, object and function of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., observed that Once the investigation makes out a case against him and he is included as an accused in the charge-sheet, the accused has to surrender to the custody of the Court and pray for regular bail. On the strength of an order granting anticipatory bail, an accused against whom charge has been framed, cannot avoid appearing before the trial Court. Coming to the merits of the case, it is the apprehension of the petitioner that under the guise of summoning him, the 1st respondent is preparing a ground for his arrest. Though the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent is that such apprehension is baseless, it is significant to note from Para No.13 of the Counter filed by the 1st respondent that the investigation has established that there is a nexus between the petitioner and Mr.Srinivasa Raju Mantena and same needs to be investigated in detail - As per the principles laid down in P.Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT], in terms of section 45 of the P.M.L. Act, this Court need to arrive at the satisfaction that (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence, he/she is charged with; and further that (ii) he/she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The application for anticipatory bail in the case of P.Chidambaram [2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT] was rejected on merits of the allegations and other material. It is trite law that in case of economic ,offences, which are having an impact on the society, the Court must be very slow in exercising the discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. But on perusal of the factual matrix of the present case, prima facie, there is no material to come to the conclusion that the act of the petitioner is having an impact on the financial status of the Country, and in that light the ratio laid down in P.Chidambaram's case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail - Petition allowed.
|