9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1353 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Grant of Regular Bail - It is contended that after filing of the complaint and issuance of arrest warrant protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not given to the accused - arrest warrant already issued - HELD THAT - Admittedly petitioner has been investigated by the department and complaint has been filed. Husband of the petitioner who is the main accused has been enlarged on bail by this court. Petitioner s bank account and property have been seized by the department there are no chances that petitioner is absconded or not appeared before the court. As complaint has been filed custodial interrogation is not required hence it is deemed proper to allow the anticipatory bail application - Anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Issues:
Bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act - Anticipatory bail application - Comparison with similar cases - Opposing arguments on anticipatory bail - Consideration of contentions - Decision on granting anticipatory bail. Analysis: The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in response to a criminal complaint registered for offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner had been interrogated, and her assets were seized, with a summons issued for her arrest. Reference was made to previous cases where bail was granted in similar circumstances. The Union of India opposed the anticipatory bail application, citing precedents where such relief was not granted after the issuance of arrest warrants, suggesting that regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should be sought instead. Upon considering the arguments, the court noted that the petitioner had been investigated, her husband (the main accused) had already been granted bail, and there was no indication of the petitioner absconding. Given that custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary after the complaint was filed, the court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing the petitioner to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks and to comply with the bail conditions set by that court.
|
