9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndisputed, the petitioner is not shown to be a flight-risk. This Court finds no tangible reason to believe that he would abscond or try to evade the law and, in any event, the same can be guarded against by imposing restrictions. The petitioner shall be released on bail forthwith in the event of his arrest, subject to conditions imposed - bail petition allowed. - Anticipatory Bail No. 45 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2021 - Hon ble The Chief Justice Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Petitioner : Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr.Advocate., Mr. N.Ibotombi Singh, Sr.Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr.S.Suresh, Panel Counsel. ORDER (CAV) [1] The petitioner, a former Chief Minister of Manipur, is presently the Leader of the Opposition in Manipur Legislative Assembly. He seeks grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with ECIR No.02/GWZO/2020 dated 16.03.2020 on the file of the Guwahati Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for brevity, the Act of 2002 ). [2] By order dated 28.10.2021, this Court directed that no coercive measures should be initiated against the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panel counsel, would argue that the present case involves economic offences and such offences need to be dealt with differently. He would assert that abuse of his official position by the petitioner led to the commission of such offences and the same should be treated all the more seriously. He would point out that the petitioner, being the former Chief Minister of the State and the Chairman of Loktak Development Authority, allowed award of works relating to Loktak Lake in utter violation of the prescribed procedure, resulting in monumental financial losses. He would contend that the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail and that grant of such relief would hamper the investigation as the petitioner, owing to his position and status, may tamper with the evidence and witnesses. [7] Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be viewed with a different approach in the matter of bail, as such offences are normally sourced in deep-rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds and need to be looked at seriously, being grave offences that affect national economy as a whole and posing a serious threat to the financial health of the country [See the observati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , having regard to the circumstances, in respect of all offences unless there is a statutory bar or restriction in respect of such offence(s). The Bench observed that an application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offences; why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest; and his side of the story. These, according to the Supreme Court, are essential for the Court which considers his application so as to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. The Bench pointed out that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation or tampering with the evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc. The Court was held to be justified in imposing conditions and it was observed that the need to impose restrictive conditions would have to be judged on a case-to-case basis, depending upon the material produced by the State or the Investigating Agen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be part of the investigation process and that his office would require custodial interrogation to record statements and provide evidence. That apart, the fact that he reserved the right of the ED to exercise its power of arrest under Section 19 of the Act of 2002 if reason existed to believe, at the relevant time, that the petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering, buttresses the perception of the threat of arrest. However, this statement is purely self-serving as it is not for the ED to determine the petitioner s guilt or innocence as that would be entirely within the domain of the Special Court that would try the case. Reliance was also sought to be placed by the Assistant Director on the twin conditions contained in Section 45 of the Act of 2002, but the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph No.42 of the decision rendered in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India another {(2018) 11 SCC 1}, make it amply clear that Section 45 has no application to grant of anticipatory bail and it would apply to grant of regular bail after an arrest is made under Section 19 of the Act of 2002. The Assistant Director further stated that the ED was of the firm be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posing restrictions. Further, as he has presented himself willingly before the ED after receiving the summons and Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned senior counsel, would assure this Court that he would continue to co-operate with the investigation and supply all such additional documents that are in his possession and may be sought during the investigation, this Court does not find any grounds warranting custodial interrogation at this stage in relation to events that took place long ago. [13] The bail petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail forthwith in the event of his arrest in connection with ECIR No.02/GWZO/2020 dated 16.03.2020 on the file of the Guwahati Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, subject to the following conditions: a. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of ₹ 1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh) only and shall also furnish two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Assistant Director, Sub-Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate at Imphal, Manipur. b. The petitioner shall continue to co-operate with the investigation by presenting himself for interrogation as and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
