TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Crime was found to be ₹ 1,38,63,445/-. Thereafter, provisional attachment order of property was passed on 30.09.2016, which was confirmed by the competent authority under Section 5 of the PML Act. After investigation, a complaint was filed on 31st March, 2017 before the Special Judge, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 8 of 2017 under Section 3/4 of PML Act. Summoning order was passed on 4th April, 2017, but since applicant failed to appear before the trial court, non-bailable warrant was issued on 17th March, 2018. There are no case for bail is made out at this stage - bail application dismissed. - BAIL No. - 12568 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 25-11-2020 - Hon'ble Rajeev Singh, J. For the Applicant : Rohit Tripathi,Chandra Bhushan Pandey For the Opposite Party : A.S.G.,Shiv P. Shukla ORDER HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. Heard Shri C.B. Pandey and Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shiv P. Shukla, learned A.S.G. for the respondent and perused the record. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Complaint Case No. 8 of 2017, under Section 3/4 Prevention o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dged on 24th February, 2010 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that in the said case, without considering the reply of the applicant, only on the basis of presumption, charge sheet was filed on 13th November, 2010 with the allegation that applicant was found in the possession of moveable and immoveable assets to the tune of ₹ 2,13,81,313/- and the income was computed to the tune of ₹ 1,51,24,983/- in the check period. He also submitted that trial of the aforesaid case is pending and the applicant is on bail in the said case also. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that proceeding under the provisions of PML Act was initiated vide ECIR/02/PMLA/L20/2010 on 23.03.2010 with reference to the aforesaid investigation of Predicate Offences initiated vide F.I.R. No. RC0062009A0033 dated 30.10.2009 and F.I.R. No. RC0062010A0010 dated 24th February, 2010 respectively and the relevant documents were called for from the CBI ACB, Lucknow, Sub-Registrar-III, Lucknow and various Banks etc. In response to the summons issued to the applicant, he filed letter dated 12th January, 2011 addressed to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that till today, no charge has been framed by the court below. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 (para 41 to 43), learned counsel for the applicant submitted that when under trial prisoners are detained in judicial custody for an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial. In such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Manu/SC/1670/2019. On the other hand, while opposing the bail application, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submitted that against the applicant, who was holding the post of Chief Regional Manager, IRCTC at Regional Office, Lucknow, a complaint of demand of bribe was received by the CBI, in pursuance to which, the trap was laid against him on 30.10.2009, in which, he was caught red handed with the bribe money of ₹ 70,000/- and F.I.R. No. RC0062009A0033 dated 30.10.2009 (supra) was lodged against the applicant. Thereafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d handed by the CBI on 30.10.2009 while receiving ₹ 70,000/- as bribe money, on account of which, F.I.R. No. RC0062009A0033 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act was registered against him. During the course of investigation, CBI also found that the applicant acquired disproportionate assets by misusing his official position, therefore, another F.I.R. No. RC0062010A0010 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act was lodged on 24th February, 2010. After investigation, it was found that the applicant was in possession of the moveable and immoveable assets to the tune of ₹ 2,13,81,313/- and income computed for the check period was to the tune of ₹ 1,51,24,983/-. It is also evident that after trial in F.I.R. No. RC0062009A0033 (supra), the applicant was convicted vide order dated 11th August, 2014 under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act and the appeal filed against the said conviction order is pending before this Court. Trial of the case in relation to disproportionate asset is also pending. In the meantime, on 23rd March, 2010, proceeding under the provisions of PML Act was also initiated by registering a case in the office of Enf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
