2015 (7) TMI 1168 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking release in PMLA Case pending before Principal District & Sessions Judge Ahmedabad (Rural) Designated Special Court under PMLA Act at Ahmedabad - Held that - Today one more fact has been brought to our notice by learned counsel for the petitioner that non-bailable arrest warrants issued against the main accused in the same case have been quashed and that accused has been allowed to join investigation under court protection. Because of the two orders of the Supreme Court dated 12.2.2015 and 07.07.2015 and in view of the objections raised by respondents regarding maintainability of the petition prima facie this Court is of the view that a clarification will be necessary as to whether this Court was competent to decide the present petition of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also agreed to move such application before the Supreme Court to obtain necessary clarification/suitable direction in the matter. Now this matter is adjourned to 30.07.2015 for further proceedings. Rejoinder if any to the written submissions be filed before that date.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Article 226 seeking direction to release in PMLA Case, maintainability of the petition, dismissal of earlier petition, bail application dismissal, permission to withdraw petitions, non-bailable arrest warrants quashed.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking release in a PMLA case pending before the Special Court. The respondents raised objections on the maintainability of the petition, citing the dismissal of an earlier petition on similar grounds by the High Court. The petitioner referred to a Supreme Court decision to argue the maintainability of the petition during the pendency of the case. The earlier petition challenged the vires of the PMLA, lack of jurisdiction for arrest, and illegal arrest. The High Court clarified that the earlier judgment would not hinder deciding bail applications or other petitions by the petitioner.

The petitioner's subsequent bail application was dismissed by the High Court, and the Supreme Court granted liberty to file an appropriate application after six months. The petitioner also filed an SLP against the earlier judgment, which was permitted to be withdrawn. Another writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking interim release was also withdrawn, with permission to file other writ petitions. The petitioner's counsel informed the court about the quashing of non-bailable arrest warrants against the main accused in the case, allowing them to join the investigation under court protection.

Due to objections raised by the respondents and Supreme Court orders, the High Court considered the competency to decide the present petition under Article 226. The petitioner agreed to seek necessary clarification or direction from the Supreme Court. The matter was adjourned for further proceedings, with a deadline set for filing any rejoinder to the written submissions before the next date.