2023 (1) TMI 1239 - HC - Money Laundering

Rejection of bail - bail application has been filed after expiry of the interim protection being granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court - application rejected mainly on the ground that applicant has not appeared before the Court rather she was absent - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the liberty of the present applicant has been protected by the Apex Court till 13.1.2023, therefore, her non-appearance before the learned trial court on or before 13.1.2023 would not be considered as an illegality on her part. Further, when she filed her application for bail before the learned trial court on 13.1.2023 she should have appeared before the learned trial court inasmuch as if the applicant does not appear before the learned trial court in the present case, her bail application could have not been decided by the learned trial court. Her presence at the time of hearing and disposal of the bail application was required under the law, therefore, there are no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 16.1.2023. Considering the ailments of the present applicant which has been indicated in the application and such critical physical condition has been considered by this Court in earlier occasion and by the Apex Court, therefore, liberty is given to the present applicant to appear before the learned trial court within one week from today. To be more precise on or before 1.2.2023 and file her bail application. The said bail application shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously preferably on the same date, if possible. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of bail application by the Special Court, PMLA / Sessions Judge, Lucknow.
2. Applicant's non-appearance before the trial court.
3. Applicant's medical condition and its impact on her ability to appear in court.
4. Legal provisions and precedents concerning bail applications and interim protection.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Bail Application by the Special Court:
The applicant's bail application was rejected by the Special Court on two grounds: the expiry of interim protection granted by the Apex Court, and the applicant's non-appearance in court. The High Court noted that the applicant had been granted interim protection by the Apex Court on several occasions, but the Special Court rejected the bail application due to her absence.

2. Applicant's Non-Appearance Before the Trial Court:
The applicant did not appear in person before the trial court, which was a requirement for the disposal of her bail application. The High Court acknowledged that the applicant should have appeared before the trial court when her bail application was to be disposed of, as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. The court found no illegality in the trial court's order rejecting the bail application due to her non-appearance.

3. Applicant's Medical Condition:
The applicant's counsel argued that she could not appear in person due to serious illness, supported by medical documents indicating multiple life-threatening diseases. The High Court considered her medical condition, noting that she had been hospitalized multiple times due to severe health issues. The court granted her liberty to appear before the trial court within one week and file a fresh bail application, to be disposed of expeditiously.

4. Legal Provisions and Precedents:
The High Court referred to various orders from the Apex Court, including interim protections and directions for the applicant to appear before the trial court. The court emphasized that the applicant's presence was necessary for the trial court to decide on her bail application. The High Court also considered the applicant's critical health condition and previous protections granted by the Apex Court, allowing her another opportunity to present her case.

Conclusion:
The High Court disposed of the application, granting the applicant one week to appear before the trial court and file a fresh bail application. The court directed that no coercive action be taken against her until her appearance or the expiry of the one-week period. The court stressed that if the applicant failed to appear within the stipulated time, the benefit of the order would not be available to her, and the prosecution could take appropriate coercive steps.