9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing reproduced herein below:- "Having considered that the impugned order is an interim order in bail proceedings, this Court by order dated 15.11.2019, had directed interim protection to the petitioner. Status quo is continued till date. It is submitted that the investigation is complete, complaint and supplementary complaint (s) have been filed. Having regard to the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the interim protection granted by this Court should be continued for a further period of eight weeks. The High Court is requested to take up the main proceedings in Bail No.4044 of 2018 and dispose it of within a period of eight weeks. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of." 3. Notably, the Apex Court has granted interim bail to the present applicant in the same bail application and that protection is still operating. 4. The present bail application has been filed seeking bail in Complaint Case No.4 of 2018 arising out of ECIR No.5/PMLA/ LKZO/2015, FIR No.RC: DST/2015/A/0003/CBI/STF/Delhi dated 30.07.2015, under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, saying that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings of the predicate/scheduled offence RC-3(A)/ 2015, CBI/STF, Delhi have been stayed by the Apex Court in Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s).322/2018, Kusum Lata & Anr. Vs. Union of India, vide order dated 07.12.2018, which has been enclosed as SA- 2 with the second supplementary affidavit. The aforesaid order dated 07.12.2018 reads as under:- "Issue notice. There shall be stay of further proceedings in the meantime." 7. It has been further informed that the present applicant has been enlarged on bail by the Apex Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).6391-6393/2019, Yadav Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, vide order dated 01.10.2019, which reads as under:- "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial Court. However, since Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General has an apprehension that if let out on bail, evidence/witnesses may be tampered with, it will be open for the respondent to apply for cancellation. The Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of." 8. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to stated scheduled offence through him." 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), there is no bar to prosecute any person under the offences of PMLA even if he/she is not named in the predicate offence and such proceedings may continue against him/her but in case that person is involved in any predicate offence and the proceedings of E.D. have been emanated from such predicate offence, the outcome of predicate offence shall have impact upon the proceedings relating to the proceedings of PMLA. 11. The brief facts of the present issue, as per the prosecution, is that from the perusal of record, it reveals that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 16.07.2015, the CBI investigated the allegations of corruption and amassing of uncounted money of accused/applicant Yadav Singh and others. As per argument, after investigation, it has been concluded that accused/applicant Yadav Singh was involved in allotting to himself and to the members of his family and associate's plots of land of high value as per the rejection order annexed in file. It has also been found that they were also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndertakes that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order. 16. Per contra, Sri Shiv P. Shukla and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava have opposed the bail application by submitting that the present applicant has committed offence defined under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA. They have further submitted that pursuant to the proceeds of crime, the properties of the PGP Trust to the tune of Rs.5,90,55,776/- have been attached provisionally. They have further submitted that after the thorough investigation, the fact emerged that affairs of the Trust in question were being managed by the applicant indirectly and during investigation, he could not rebut those allegations, therefore, in view of Section 24 of the PMLA, burden of proof shall lie upon the applicant to disprove those allegations. Further, statements of various persons have been recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and as per statements of those persons, the present applicant has been found guilty of the offence for which the prosecution complaint has been filed. They have also stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the learned counsel for the E.D. and he has filed a detailed counter affidavit. Not only the above, neither learned counsel for the Union of India nor counsel for the E.D. has shown any order to show that the stay order staying the proceedings of the predicate offence has been vacated, rather those proceedings of the predicate offence have been stayed since 07.12.2018 i.e. more than four years and three months, so considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in its entirety, more particularly the fact that the present applicant is on interim bail since 15.11.2019 in this case granted by the Apex Court and there is no adverse report of misusing the liberty or flouting any condition of bail by the present applicant, besides, there was neither a flight risk, nor would he tamper with the evidence nor is influencing the trial proceedings, I am convinced that the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA are satisfied in the present case. 20. It is pertinent to indicate here that the Apex Court in re; Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, has observed in para-86 that more the rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to be and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall surrender his passport before the court below co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
