2022 (7) TMI 1432 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged - HELD THAT - Since under the sections in which the charge sheet has been filed the punishment is upto seven years, therefore, it is expected from the learned court below to abide by the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court inSATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANR. 2021 (10) TMI 1296 - SUPREME COURT , SIDDHARTH VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ANR. 2021 (8) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT and AMAN PREET SINGH VERSUS C.B.I., THROUGH DIRECTOR 2021 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT as the law propounded by the Apex Court is the law of land and everyone is duty bound to follow such law in its letter and spirit. It is also observed that the present applicant shall also cooperate with the trial Neutral proceedings properly. There is no need to pass any order granting anticipatory bail as prima facie it appears that there is no apprehension of the arrest of the present applicant - instant anticipatory bail application is disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Anticipatory Bail Application

Analysis:
The High Court heard the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant who was fearing arrest in Case Crime No. 391 of 2020 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant claimed innocence and stated that he had cooperated during the investigation, which is why he was not arrested despite the filing of a charge sheet carrying a maximum punishment of seven years. Citing recent judgments like Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, Siddharth vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, and Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I., the applicant argued that his arrest may not be warranted as he would continue to cooperate with the trial proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of following the law laid down by the Apex Court and expected the lower court to adhere to the principles established in the mentioned judgments. Given the circumstances and the absence of any imminent threat of arrest, the court found no need to grant anticipatory bail and disposed of the application accordingly.