TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ituated co-accused have already surrendered before the trial court and looking to the fact that accused petitioner is involved in serious economic offence involving huge sum of money and keeping in mind the principle of law enunciated by Hon ble apex court in P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [ 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT] , but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not deem it to be a fit case to enlarge the accused petitioner on anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is dismissed. - S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4148/2020, 5452/2020 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2020 - Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Vyas For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Pareek, Sr. Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis that she filed an application in the trial court to get released the amount seized from her husband, as that amount legally belonged to her husband. There is no cogent and reliable evidence to connect the accused petitioner with the alleged crime. It has also been submitted that on 21.01.2019 learned trial court proceeding on a complaint filed by the respondent/s, took cognizance against the accused petitioner for offences puniahable under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and non bailable warrant was issued against her in the first instance, which was not legally justified. It has also been contended that she is an old lady suffering from various ailments, regarding which proper documentation has been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corruption Bureau Court under Sections 451 and 452 of CrPC for release of ₹ 2.65 crore, which originally belonged to her husband and over which she has a legal right. It has been vehemently argued that merely on this ground accused petitioner cannot be convicted for offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It has also been argued that as per the law propounded by Hon ble Courts anticipatory bail application is maintainable even when non bailable warrant has been issued by trial court. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the accused petitioner has placed reliance on following case laws :- (i) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharshtra Others (Criminal Appeal No.2271/2010 arising out of SLP (Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in other offences. In Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy v. SBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, SFIO v. Nitin Johri (2019) 9 SCC 165 and in State of Gujrat v. Mohanlal Jitmalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, Hon ble apex court has taken similar view because economic offences destroy the very fabric of the society. It has also been argued that accused petitioner has a history of fleeing away from justice, which is evident from the fact that designated court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 took cognizance of the matter and issued non bailable warrant way back in January 2019, but the accused is evading the process of law. It has also been submitted that the order by which designated court took cognizance against the accused petitioner and ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h distinct and independent from each other. Thus, it cannot be said that because accused petitioner was not named in the FIR registered under Prevention of Corruption Act, she cannot be proceeded against for offence under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record. 5. On consideration of arguments/submissions of both the parties, perusal of material on record and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, specially to the fact that revision petition challenging the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the trial court, has already been dismissed by a coordinate bench of this court as well as by the Hon ble Supreme Court, similarly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
