9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 503 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Regular Bail - money laundering - scheduled offences - Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C - HELD THAT - A bare reading of the impugned orders (Annexures P-15) reveals that the trial Court has not bothered at all to abide by the directions of this Court while passing the same as neither it has properly discussed and dealt with all the contentions, as raised by the Special Public Prosecutor for the ED before it nor has distinguished the facts and circumstances of the matter remitted to it, from those of the cases wherein the judgments, as cited by him (the Special Public Prosecutor) in support of his contentions, had been passed and it has, rather, touched a different tangent by citing the case law to discard/ignore the same. Though the impugned orders dated 02.03.2021 passed by the trial Court are not legally sustainable but however, this Court is no more competent to quash/ set aside the same as the order passed by this Court on 02.06.2021 granting the relief of regular bail to the respondents has not been interfered with and has, thus, been upheld by the Apex Court - Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing/setting aside the orders dated 02.03.2021 by the trial Court. 2. Remanding the custody of respondents-accused to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Section 167 Cr.P.C. 3. Legality of the trial Court's orders rejecting ED's request for custody. 4. Impact of the regular bail granted to respondents-accused. 5. Competence of the High Court to adjudicate on the matter after the Supreme Court's order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing/Setting Aside the Orders Dated 02.03.2021 by the Trial Court: The petitioner-Directorate of Enforcement (ED) sought the quashing of the orders dated 02.03.2021 passed by the trial Court, which had declined their request for custody of the respondents-accused. The ED argued that the trial Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offences and the contentions raised by the ED. The trial Court's decision was seen as ignoring the direction given by the High Court in a previous order dated 01.03.2021, which had remitted the matter for fresh consideration. 2. Remanding the Custody of Respondents-Accused to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) Under Section 167 Cr.P.C: The ED contended that since the matter remained pending in the courts during the first 15 days from the date of the respondents' arrest, the provisions of Section 167 Cr.P.C would not bar remanding their custody to the ED even at this stage. The ED cited cases like Parimal Kumar Lodh vs. The State of West Bengal and Sheel Chand Jain vs. State of M.P to support their argument. 3. Legality of the Trial Court's Orders Rejecting ED's Request for Custody: The High Court noted that the trial Court did not properly discuss and deal with all contentions raised by the ED. The trial Court failed to distinguish the facts of the present case from those of the cases cited by the ED. The High Court found the trial Court's orders legally unsustainable, as they did not adhere to the directions given by the High Court in its previous order dated 01.03.2021. 4. Impact of the Regular Bail Granted to Respondents-Accused: The respondents-accused had been granted regular bail by the High Court on 02.06.2021, and this order was upheld by the Supreme Court on 20.10.2021. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had not dealt with the mandatory twin requirements but granted bail considering the respondents' senior citizenship and cooperation during the investigation. The Supreme Court's order left the question of law open and stated that the bail order should not be treated as a precedent in other cases. 5. Competence of the High Court to Adjudicate on the Matter After the Supreme Court's Order: The High Court observed that it was no longer competent to consider and adjudicate upon the ED's prayer for custody of the respondents-accused due to the Supreme Court's order upholding the bail granted to the respondents. The High Court suggested that the ED, if deemed necessary, should seek appropriate legal remedies to address its grievances. Conclusion: The High Court acknowledged that the trial Court's orders dated 02.03.2021 were not legally sustainable. However, due to the Supreme Court's order upholding the bail granted to the respondents, the High Court could not quash or set aside the trial Court's orders. The petitions were disposed of accordingly, with the ED advised to pursue other legal remedies if necessary.
|
