TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court further observed that Section 45 of the Act of 2002 is akin to Section 20(8) of the TADA and that the latter was upheld only because it was imminent for the State to deal with terrorist activities. The amendment, which has been incorporated under Section45 of the Act of 2002 substitutes the words under this Act for punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule . Prior to the amendment, Section 45of the Act of 2002 was applicable to offences punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule, however, after the amendment, Section 45 of the Act of 2002 was made applicable to the offences punishable under the Act. If this amendment is to be taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Sharma ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439Cr.P.C. 2. ECIR No. JPZO/02/2014 was registered at Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur, for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2002 ). 3. In brief, the factual matrix of the case are that an FIR bearing No.289/2013 was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur against father of the petitioner and two others, for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 384 and 120-B of IPC pertaining to a bribe amount of ₹ 5 lacs. The petitioner was neither made accused in the FIR nor he was char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstitution of India. It is contended that the minimum sentence provided under the Act of 2002 is 3 years, which may be extended to 7 years. It is further contended that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 5 months. It is also contended that the Apex Court as well as the High Courts have been enlarging accused on bail under the Act of 2002 and as recently as on 13.8.2020, bail was granted by the Apex Court in Ashok Singhvi Versus Umanand Vijay Anr.:SLP (Crl.)No.3122/2020, a case pertaining to money laundering. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment in Sanjay Chandra Versus CBI: 2012 (1) SCC 40 wherein relevant considerations for grant of bail were discussed.The Apex Court in that case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate of Enforcement has vehemently opposed the bail application. It is argued by the counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement that the petitioner is involved in the offence of money laundering. In addition to purchasing the flat worth ₹ 14 lacs, he is the Director of many companies and is also a trustee in a trust in which money was transferred. It is also contended that after the twin conditions were declared as unconstitutional, the Act of 2002 has been amended and after the amendment, the twin conditions are revived. 10. It is contended that whether the twin conditions of the Act of2002 are revived, was also considered by the Delhi High Court in Upendra Rai Versus Directorate of Enforcement: Bail Application No.249/2019 decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in condition shave to be considered. The Apex Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah case (supra) has already declared the twin conditions as void and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and has directed the High Courts to decide the bail application ignoring the twin conditions. Merely by an amendment and substitution of some words and insertion of the Explanation, the twin conditions would not be revived, as the twin conditions were held to be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 14. The Apex Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Versus The State of Maharashtra Ors.: Criminal Appeal No.742/2020, has observed that the bail applications should not be delayed and right to liberty shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lacs. The petitioner himself is MBBS, MD (Pediatrics). There is no chance of his fleeing from justice or threatening the witnesses as the witnesses in this case are government personnel. 17. Taking note of the fact that the sentence provided under the Act of 2002 ranges from 3 years to 7 years, that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 5 months, that conclusion of the trial will take time and that the petitioner has been given benefit of bail in predicate FIR, I deem it proper to allow the present bail application. 18. This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that the accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
