9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the formal complaint is not explained by the prosecution. Hence, the applicant would be entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature. That the co-accused shall not claim parity with the present applicant and their application needs to be decided on its own merits. The Designated Court shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove as they pertain to consideration of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The application is allowed. The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount. - CRIMINAL BAILAPPLICATION NO. 1817 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- 17-11-2014 - Smt.Sadhana S.Jadhav,J. Mr.Raja Thakare i/b. Mr. Avadhut M. Chimalkar,Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rebecca Gonsalves And Mr. A.S.Shitole for the respondent. JUDGEMENT Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is taken into custody on 6.8.2014 pursuant to his appearance in the Summons received by him on 2.8.2014 under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opriation had come to light on 6.2.2009 and hence the Branch Manager of Union Bank of India had requested the Branch Manager of HDFC Bank not to disburse/release the amounts which were to be released pursuant to RTGS transfer of ₹ 10 crores forwarded by Nariman Point Branch on 5.2.2009 in the account of P.K. Financial Services. He had also sent request letters to that effect. HDFC Bank refused to oblige the request of the Branch Manager and hence Union Bank of India was constrained to approach the Hon'ble High Court by way of a suit, being Suit No.718 of 2009. On 4.10.2010, the Hon'ble High Court had granted interim relief pursuant to which HDFC Bank has deposited ₹ 9,99,19,000/- in the High Court in Suit No.718 of 2009. Special Case No.91 of 2009 is registered against the present applicant and others. Charge-sheet is filed on 30.9.2009 against the present applicant and others for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. It is pertinent to note that it was revealed in the course of investigation that the applicant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless - (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail; Provided that a person who is under th age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, may be released on bail, if the special court so directs: Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by - (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or a special order made in this behalf by that Government. In the present case, the first condition has been satisfied as the respondent has been not only given an oppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Anr . AIR 2005 SC 2277. In that case, the said applicant was being tried under the provisions of MCOC Act. In the present case, the applicant is not being tried only under the PMLA 2002, but mainly under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act and in the course of committing the said offence, the applicant is alleged to have committed offence under the PMLA 2002. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 55 has observed thus : 55. The wording of Section 21(4), in our opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that the Court must arrive at a positive finding that the applicant for bail has not committed an offence under the Act. If such a construction is placed, the court intending to grant bail must arrive at a finding that the applicant has not committed such an offence. In such an event, it will be impossible for the prosecution to obtain a judgment of conviction of the applicant. Such cannot be the intention of the Legislature. Section 21(4) of MCOCA, therefore, must be construed reasonably. It must be so construed that the Court is able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
