9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also conducted in the house of the petitioner during which certain articles were also seized and the petitioner's statement was recorded. Generally the Courts would hesitate to. grant anticipatory bail in case where there is reasonable apprehension that securing presence of the accused is difficult and there is every likelihood that he may influence witnesses and tamper the evidence - The respondents have not proceeded further against the petitioner and they have not taken any steps since 2017. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry as far as nephew of the petitioner is concerned basing on whose statement the petitioner was summoned is also completed. Taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner, where only summons were issued under Section 50 of PML Act in the year 2017, as the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused, the bail granted by learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, and the health condition of the petitioner and his wife this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail - petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he has transferred funds to the tune of nearly ₹ 1,500/- crores by using forged documents to various foreign companies located in China, Hong Kong and Singapore as per the instruction received by him from Vinit Goenka, Ayush Goyal and Vikas Gupta. Vaddi Mahesh also furnished a list of persons associated with the foreign companies and in the course of investigation it was found that Ayush Goyal, who is nephew of the petitioner herein was acting on the instructions of the petitioner. Basing on the evidence collected and statements of various persons, with a view to verify and collect more evidence, notices were issued to the petitioner under Section 50 of the PML Act asking him to appear before respondent No. 2 officials. 3. The case of the petitioner is that his name does not find place either in crime No. 181 of 2017 or in the complaint but as one of the accused mentioned the names of the petitioner and his son, with an apprehension of arrest they filed Crl. M.P. No. 741 of 2018 against CID, Vijayawada before I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail and the same was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly failed to appear before the officers of Directorate since 2017 and he is coming up with one or the other excuse evading his appearance. Therefore, in view of the conduct of the petitioner respondent No. 2 officials are apprehending that if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail there would not be cooperation from him for conducting investigation. Hence, he strenuously opposed the bail petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed reply affidavit along with seizure memo, statement given by the petitioner and medical reports, wherein it is specifically stated that he has not received any summons in the year 2017 and it is only in the year the petitioner received notices. The particulars of the summons received and the letters addressed by the petitioner are given in a tabular form. 7. It is also stated in the reply affidavit that the petitioner never shied away from the investigation, his statements have been recorded and essential documents which are required for investigation purpose were also submitted as requested. The reason for not appearing before respondent No. 2 officials on the dates fixed is due to his personal inconvenience, health condition of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealth condition he is not in a position to travel, as such his personal appearance may not be insisted and if his personal appearance is required, another date may be fixed for his appearance. Again summons were issued on 01.12.2020 and the petitioner received the same on 11.12.2020, when search was conducted in his house. The petitioner again addressed letter dated 14.12.2020 stating that his wife is suffering with cancer and Doctor's appointment was fixed and hence, requested to permit him to appear before respondent No. 2 office in Kolkata. He also enclosed medical prescription to the letter and the same was received by the officials on 18.12.2020. Subsequently, again the petitioner received summons dated 16.12.2020 and 21.12.2020 wherein the petitioner was directed to appear on 21.12.2020 and 29.12.2020 respectively. The petitioner got prepared to go to Visakhapatnam on 28.12.2020 but he was attacked with COVID-19. Therefore, he addressed another letter to respondent No. 2 by enclosing medical reports requesting to fix another date after 29.12.2020. Thereafter the petitioner received summons dated 06.01.2021 wherein he was directed to appear before respondent No. 2 official ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sovereignty and for the offences under the PML Act, pre-arrest bail should not be granted. There is no remedy of anticipatory bail in the scheme of PML Act. He relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Vakamulla Chandrasekhar vs. Enforcement Directorate (referred supra) wherein it is held that Section 44(2) of the PML Act speaks of the power of the High Court to deal with a regular bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. but there is no similar provision made in the PML Act with regard to power of the High Court/Sessions Court to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Thus, prima facie the relief of statutory anticipatory bail is excluded under scheme of PML Act. 15. In reply to the above contention learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for pre-arrest bail is. maintainable and in support of his contention he placed reliance on Okram Ibobi Singh vs. Directorate of Enforcement (referred supra) wherein the High Court of Manipur held as under: This Court is also of the view that the PML Act is very silent for granting anticipatory bail, however, when a person's personal liberty is violated, anticipatory bail can be granted. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terrogating the accused and collecting useful information and also the materials, which might have been concealed. In those circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail and felt custodial interrogation was necessary. 19. While dealing with an application for pre-arrest bail, the Courts have to take into consideration the following parameters: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made.; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has' previously undergone imprisonment oh conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se according to the learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2 summons were issued to the petitioner in 2017. Now after four years, respondent No. 2-officials cannot have these apprehensions because if at all the petitioner intends to indulge in such activities he must have done by this time. The respondents have not proceeded further against the petitioner and they have not taken any steps since 2017. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry as far as nephew of the petitioner is concerned basing on whose statement the petitioner was summoned is also completed. 23. Taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner, where only summons were issued under Section 50 of PML Act in the year 2017, as the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused, the bail granted by learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, and the health condition of the petitioner and his wife this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail. 24. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Enfo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
