9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 151 - SCH - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - commission of a serious economic offence of money laundering - offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - In view of the statement made and subject to compliance and deposit as directed, the appellant, Rajkumar Daitapati, shall be released on bail in the event of being arrested in connection with ECIR No. JPZ0/1/2015 (Sessions Case No.37 of 2021) (Enforcement Directorate vs. Rajkumar Daitapati) for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, on the terms and conditions fixed by the trial Court. In addition, the appellant will comply with the provisions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
In the Supreme Court case presided over by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, the petitioner, Rajkumar Daitapati, was represented by a team of senior advocates, while the respondent was represented by the Solicitor General and other legal representatives. The Court granted leave and focused on a tripartite agreement dated 08.10.2010, which involved a financial figure of Rs. 92,00,000. It was noted that Daitapati had deposited Rs. 80,00,000 with the Reserve Bank of India. During the hearing, the appellant agreed to deposit an additional Rs. 20,00,000 within three weeks, allowing the Reserve Bank of India to permit the repatriation of funds to the complainants, Tom Izaks and other depositors, upon fulfilling formalities.
The Court ordered that, subject to compliance with the deposit, Daitapati would be released on bail if arrested in connection with ECIR No. JPZ0/1/2015 (Sessions Case No.37 of 2021) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The terms and conditions of bail would be determined by the trial court, and Daitapati must comply with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with the grant of anticipatory bail not being an expression of opinion on the case's merits. Pending applications were disposed of.
|
