9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hu, Advocate, for applicant-NSEL. * * * * * M EENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J. Apprehending his arrest in the criminal case arising out of the FIR bearing No.0093 dated 28.05.2021 registered at Police Station Dehlon, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana, under Sections 420, 421, 465, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, the petitioner has preferred this petition for seeking the relief of anticipatory bail. 2. The genesis of the facts and circumstances, culminating in the registration of the subject FIR, lies in a criminal case registered at Police Station MRA Marg, Mumbai vide FIR No.216 dated 30.09.2013 under Sections 120-B, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) IPC in respect of the economic offence, known as NSEL Scam, involving the amount of Rs. 5600 crore. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade in the relevant revenue record pertaining to the land situated in Village Ayali Khurd and though, the entry to this effect was made in the revenue record qua the land located in Village Jasad but it was deleted later-on and now, the same has again been recorded. 4. Respondent No.1-State has already filed its Written-Reply by way of the affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police (South) Ludhiana and respondent No.2-Directorate has also submitted its Reply, by way of the affidavit of Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai as well as the Additional Reply, by way of another affidavit of the same officer. 5. I have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel for respondent No.1 and le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under the PMLA before the Court and would become final after an order of confiscation is passed and they have argued that the proceedings are, presently, continuing/pending in the Special Court at Mumbai and hence, the above-said order is still in force. 7. I find force in the arguments of learned Additional Solicitor General of India and learned Senior Panel counsel (UOI) for respondent No.2 because Section 8(3) of PMLA provides as under:- "(3) Where the Adjudicating Authority decides under sub-section (2) that any property is involved in money-laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the attachment of the property made under sub-section (1) of Section 5 or rete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged under the above-said provisions for the validity of the order qua the confirmation of the attachment of the property, during the pendency of the investigation proceedings only, would not be applicable to order Annexure P-4. To add to it, the orders Annexures P-3 & P-4 have already been challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal by way of an appeal which is, concededly, still pending. This fact, itself, leads to an unequivocal inference to the effect that the afore-said orders are still in force because otherwise, there would not have been any occasion for the petitioner to continue to pursue the said appeal. 9. The observations, as made by the Division Bench of this Court in Seema Garg (supra) are of no help to the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de out or not because the investigation is still at the nascent stage and the petitioner has yet to join the same. 12. To add to it, the subject FIR is an off-shoot of the economic offence pertaining to the scam involving the investments of the genuine/ bona-fide depositors to the tune of Rs. 5600 crore approximately and a sum of Rs. 720 crore, out of the same, has allegedly been swindled away by the petitioner through his Companies. It has specifically been observed by the Apex Court in P.Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement Criminal Appeal No.1340 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7523 of 2019) Decided on 05.09.2019 that "the economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition. 15. Again, it is worth-while to mention here that the observations as made in Arnesh Kumar (supra) do not come to the rescue of the petitioner to seek the afore-said relief because the directions given therein pertain only to the cases involving the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whereas the offence under Section 467 IPC is also involved in the present FIR besides the other offences as detailed therein and the said offence is punishable upto imprisonment for life. 16. To cap it all, this Court deems it appropriate and necessary to precisely discuss the conduct of the petitioner as the same would also be one of the key factors to adjudicate/a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
