9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndicated in para-4 of the bail application. Reference of 13 cases has been given and the applicant is said to have been granted bail in all the aforesaid 13 cases, which are the predicate offences. However, the present applicant was taken into custody on 01.09.2022 by the E.D. in Complaint Case No.110 of 2019, however, at that point of time, the present applicant was already in judicial custody. Learned counsel has stated that the E.D. has filed ECIR in the year 2018 pursuant to the FIR bearing Case Crime No.0674 of 2017 under Sections 419, 420 & 406 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Mau, District- Mau, U.P. After lodging the ECIR, the E.D. summoned the present applicant on 10.09.2018 and 11.09.2018 and the present applicant appeared before the E.D. and recorded his statement but he has not been arrested under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereafter referred to as "PMLA"). The present applicant has been arrested in the predicate offence on 22.02.2019. Thereafter, the E.D. has again recorded the statement of the applicant in the jail on 09.04.2019 but did not take him into the custody. On 24.05.2019, the E.D. filed prosecution complaint under Section 45 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same Sections till 2019 and the present applicant has been granted bail in all the aforesaid 13 cases. Further, the present applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution complaint, therefore, the E.D. did not find it appropriate to arrest the present applicant immediately after lodging the ECIR on 05.09.2018 whereas the applicant was called twice on 10.09.2018 and 11.09.2018 to record his statement. The E.D. did not find it appropriate to take the custody of the present applicant till 01.09.2022 and what was the cogent reason for taking the custody of the applicant by the E.D. is not clear when the applicant was already in judicial custody. Therefore, it has been submitted that arrest of the present applicant was not warranted by the E.D.; may be for the reason that it might have not been clear that in the offence in question that the present applicant has committed the offence or not. Since the present applicant has already served more than half punishment, therefore, considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Ramchand Karunakaran vs. Directorate of Enforcement & anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1650 of 2022, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6061 of 2020) date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 19 of the PMLA immediately after lodging the ECIR and at the time when the applicant appeared before the E.D. to record his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA, even his custody has not been taken after filing the prosecution complaint by the E.D., then why his custody has been taken on 01.09.2022 when the present applicant was already within the judicial custody in the predicate offence, no satisfactory reply has been given by Sri Tripathi, however, he has tried to explain that since it was within the knowledge of the E.D. that the present applicant is already within the judicial custody and his cooperation has been taken from the jail itself, therefore, there was no need to take his custody till 01.09.2022. However, Sri Tripathi has stated that there is no restriction on the E.D. to take custody of the present applicant as and when the E.D. finds proper. However, the reason to take the custody of the present applicant has not been clarified properly. As per Sri Tripathi, the present applicant has been Managing Director of the Company, therefore, his bail application may be rejected and the period he has served in the jail before taking is custody by the E.D. shall n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases against the present applicant wherein the FIRs have been registered under various sections of Indian Penal Code wherein trial would go and the outcome of the trial proceedings in all the predicate offences would impact the proceedings of E.D. inasmuch as the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, has held that if any accused person is discharged or acquitted in the predicate offence, he may not be prosecuted under the PMLA. So far as the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA are concerned, I have heard learned counsel for the E.D. at substantial length and the present applicant has served more than half punishment, has not misused the process of law and appeared before the E.D. on the summons and about three years have passed since filing of the charge sheet and there is no likelihood of the trial proceedings to be concluded with expedition, therefore, in view of para-86 of the dictum of Apex Court in re; Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, whereby the Apex Court has observed that more the rigour, quicker the adjudication ought to be. So the rigours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
