2020 (3) TMI 1375 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of anticipatory bail - summon of petitioner directly through arrest warrant whereas the trial Court should have called the petitioner through bailable warrant - HELD THAT - This anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the revision petition challenging the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the trial Court by which the petitioner was summoned through arrest warrant has already been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SANJAY SETHI S/O SHRI SWAROOP CHAND SETH VERSUS UMA NAND VIJAY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2020 (1) TMI 1524 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT . Secondly, similarly situated co-accused have already surrendered before the trial Court after dismissal of their petitions by this Court as well as by the Hon ble Supreme Court; thirdly, the petitioner is involved in serious economic offence, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is not enlarged on anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Anticipatory bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Criminal Complaint No.10/2018 for offences under Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with a criminal complaint registered for offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated and had cooperated during the investigation. It was highlighted that the trial court had summoned the petitioner through an arrest warrant instead of a bailable warrant, and the petitioner had previously challenged this order through different legal avenues. The petitioner had also suffered a brain stroke during the proceedings. The interim protection granted by the Supreme Court was until a specified date, following which the bail application was filed. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail based on the circumstances of the case.

The Additional Solicitor General opposed the bail application, mentioning that the petitioner had been summoned through an arrest warrant and that similar co-accused had surrendered and were in custody. It was emphasized that previous revision petitions challenging the summoning order had been dismissed by the court. The petitioner had been discharged from the hospital after treatment. After hearing both parties and examining the record, the court decided to dismiss the anticipatory bail application. The decision was based on several factors: the dismissal of the revision petition challenging the summoning order, the surrender of co-accused, and the serious nature of the economic offence the petitioner was involved in. The court did not express any opinion on the case's merits but declined to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.