9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18. Statements of the petitioners have already been recorded and they have shown their readiness to join the proceedings as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency. Interim orders are made absolute - petition disposed off. - CRM-M No. 12488 of 2019, CRM-M No. 19330 of 2019, CRM-M No. 21330 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2020 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate Mr. Virat Amarnath, Advocate Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Senior Panel Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel Advocate and Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Senior Panel Advocate for the respondent ORDER Raj Mohan Singh, J. [1]. Vide this common order, CRM-M No.12488 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 & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt 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 anticipatory bail. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Enforcement Directorate has accepted that the present complaint is based on the FIR under the P.C. Act. He has argued that this is a case where the petitioner has diverted almost ₹ 600 crores of ill gotten assets. He has argued that the investigation is still going on, to which the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has responded by stating that the petitioner would have no objection in appearing before the Investigating Officer. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to grant interim bail to the petitioner to enable him to appear before the Investigating Officer. In the meantime, let the petitioner appear before the Investigating Officer on 15.04.2019 at 10.00 AM and on any other date as and when his presence is required and he will be released on bail by the Investigating Officer subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 28.44 crores. The distressed value of the same has been assessed as ₹ 26.75 crores. Prosecuting Agency has also attached Hotel Marc Royale-II village Dhakoli, Tehsil Dera Bassi owned by M/s Ashiana Inn (P) Ltd. now known as M/s Ashiana Inn Ltd, whose fair market value of ₹ 58.36 crores, conservative value of ₹ 49.60 crores and distressed value of ₹ 43.75 crores have 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 postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 45 of the PMLA, imposing twin stringent conditions for the offences classified thereunder was held to be arbitrary, discriminatory and invalid. [14]. At the last, it has been submitted that in the event of further investigation, the petitioners are not averse to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so. In terms of the prayer clause of the complaint, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. [15]. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on the behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that after filing of the complaint and order of summoning, the petitioners are required to surrender before the trial Court and seek regular bail in accordance with law. [16]. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties. [17]. Both the parties have tried to argue the case on merits, which in considered opinion of this Court is not necessary for deciding the bail, lest it may prejudice the case of any of the parties. [18]. Vide order dated 20.01.2020 passed by this Court, the case was adjourned at the instance of learned counsel for the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement, PMLA Jalandhar in orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
