9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Anand Sharma. Order 1. These bail applications have been filed by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioners are in judicial custody in connection with Session Case No.1/2019 (previously ECIR No.JPZO/10/2015, Criminal Complaint No.10/2018) pending in the court of Special Sessions Judge (Communal Riots/Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur for offences under Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. Due to outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19), the lawyers are not appearing in the courts. 3. Heard learned counsels for the parties through video calling and perused the record. 4. Brief facts of the case are that a raid was conducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ections 3 & 4 of the PML Act and summoned the petitioners and other coaccused persons through non-bailable warrants. On 27.03.2019 proceedings of the ACB case pending before the Special Court (Udaipur) were transferred to Special Court (PML Act), Jaipur and as such both the cases went under trial in same court i.e. Special Court, PML Act Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The orders of cognizance as well as summoning the petitioners through bailable warrants dated 21.01.2019/ 03.01.2020 were challenged by the petitioners and other co-accused persons by filing the misc./revision petitions which were dismissed by the Coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2020. The said order was further challenged by the petitioners and other co-ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrants. Counsel further submits that a raid was conducted and the amount which was recovered by the ACB under the scheduled offences is lying in the FDR and no misuse of the said amount has been committed either by the petitioners or by other co-accused persons. Counsel further submits that the trial of both the cases is jointly going on and the petitioners have been granted bail even under the scheduled offences. Counsel relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nikesh Tarachand Shah, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 1 and Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22. 8. Sh. R.D. Rastogi, Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Anand Sharma Adv., submitted that the cases r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delivered on 04.10.2019 in Crl.O.P. No.9796/2019 & connected matter. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur under section 439 Cr.P.C. under the scheduled offences. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are in custody since 19.02.2020/ 17.03.2020. 10. While dealing with the present bail applications, this court has to see three facts, 1. running away of the accused 2. tempering with the evidence 3. influencing witnesses. 11. After considering these three factors in the facts and circumstances of the present case and going through the judgments cited by both the counsels, in my considered view the petitioners are entitled to be released ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
