9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88 of 2019, CRM-M No.19330 of 2019 and CRM-M No.21330 of 2019 are being decided. Since all the petition arise out of same FIR, therefore, common facts are being noticed. [2]. Petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 65 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'the PMLA') in Prosecution Complaint No.COMA/2/2018 dated 31.08.2018 titled 'Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement vs. M/s Ashiana Inn Ltd. & other registered on the basis of ECIR/JLZO/01/2016 dated 18.02.2016 under Section 45(1) of the PMLA. [3]. For the offence of money laundering under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the FIR No.12 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Complaint No.COMA/2/2018 titled as Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement Vs. M/s Ashiana Inn Ltd & other registered on the basis of ECIR/JLZ0/01/2016 dated 18.02.2016 u/s 45 (1) of P.M.L.A. The brief facts are that initially an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the P.C. Act) was lodged against the petitioner for being in possession of assets disproportionate to his income. Admittedly, he remained in custody for more than 3 months before he was bailed out by this Court. On the basis of that FIR the Enforcement Directorate filed the present case against the petitioner in respect of laundering and diversion of those ill gotten assets and it is in this complaint that the petitioner is seeking anticipat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , similar order was passed on 10.05.2019 and the petition was ordered to be listed along with CRM-M No.12488 of 2019. Interim order was passed in the same terms as passed in CRM-M No.12488 of 2019. [9]. Learned Senior counsel and other counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) submitted that the investigation in the complaint case is still going on and in view of interim protection granted by the High Court, the petitioners have been appearing before the Investigating Officer. The investigation in the complaint started on 18.02.2016. The complaint in question came to be filed on 31.08.2018. Petitioners have been summoned only on 02.11.2018. Petitioners were never sought to be arrested during process of inquiry/investigation prior to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been assessed. [12]. It has been further submitted that since the petitioners have not misused the concession of interim direction issued by this Court and they have already furnished bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Special Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, therefore, in the light of observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2018(2) R.C.R.) Criminal 131, petitioners are entitled for bail. The indulgence qua the same had already been granted by this Court and the petitioners have already furnished bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Special Judge. Para Nos.2 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "2. A fundamental postula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shing the FIR lodged against him, he was granted two months time to appear before the trial judge. All these facts are an indication that there was no apprehension that the appellant would abscond or would hamper the trial in any manner. That being the case, the trial judge, as well as the High Court ought to have judiciously exercised discretion and granted bail to the appellant. It is nobody's case that the appellant is a shady character and there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activity, let alone any alleged illegal activity." [13]. It has been further submitted that Section 45(1) of the PMLA was declared to be ultra vires in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India & A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tached the properties of the petitioners as per valuation shown in the documents narrated in preceding paras of the judgment. [19]. Evidently, the investigation started in the complaint w.e.f. 18.02.2016. For more than 2½ years, the petitioners were never sought to be arrested, rather they were allowed to join the investigation by means of recording their statements and provisional attachment of their properties was also done. Petitioners could have been arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA, but the same was not done by the respondent- Department. Even as per reply submitted by Assistant Director/respondent in CRM-M No.21330 of 2019 titled 'Avtar Singh vs. Assistant Directorate of Enforcement, PMLA Jalandhar, para no.7 reas as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
