9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and has, thus, been upheld by the Apex Court - Petition disposed off. - CRM-M No.10285 of 2021 and CRM-M No.10287 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2022 - HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA ***** Argued by:- Mr. S.V. Raju, Senior Advocate, Addl. Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Senior Counsel, Govt. of India with Mr. Shobit Phutela, Mr. Anshuman Singh and Mr. Ankit Bhatia, Advocates for the petitioner in both the petitions. Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh and Ms. Rubina, Advocates for the respondent in CRM-M No.10285 of 2021. Mr. Manav Gupta, Advocate, with Mr. Abhinav Gupta and Mr. Nitesh Jhajhria, Advocates for the respondent in CRM-M No.10287 of 2021. MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J. By way of the instant petitions, the petitioner-Directorate of Enforcement (for short the ED ) has sought the indulgence of this Court for quashing/setting aside the orders dated 02.03.2021 (Annexed as P-15 in both the petitions) passed by learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, Gurugram, (for short, the trial Court ) in the Enforcement Case Information Report bearing No.01/HIU/2019 (here-in-after to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, been released on bail by the competent Court. 3. However, it is worth-while to mention here that subsequently, the ED registered the ECIR on the basis of the afore-said FIR. Then, respondent-accused Ashok Solomon preferred Writ Petition (Criminal) No.979 of 2020 in Delhi High Court for seeking the quashing of the above-referred ECIR and vide the order dated 07.08.2020 (Annexed as P-9 in both the petitions), the same was disposed of with the direction for the closure of the said ECIR, while granting liberty to the respondents therein to revive the same if a supplementary charge-sheet was filed or a charge was framed qua the petitioner, i.e the afore-named respondent-accused, concerning the Scheduled Offence(s). Thereafter, on finding some fresh evidence/material during the further investigation, a supplementary Charge-Sheet/Challan was presented under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, while adding the offence under Section 420 IPC in the case which led to the revival of the above-referred ECIR as the afore-said offence is one of the Scheduled Offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, the PML Act ) and the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) are reportedly senior citizen(s) and had cooperated during the investigation as noted by the High Court, we decline to interfere in these special leave petitions, while leaving question of law open. The impugned order shall not be treated as precedent in other cases. The special leave petitions are disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. From the perusal of the afore-cited observations, it becomes explicit that the relief of regular bail, as extended to the respondents, has not been cancelled and rather, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in this regard, has been upheld. 7. I have heard learned Additional Solicitor General of India (Senior Counsel) for the petitioner-ED in both the instant petitions, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-accused in CRM-M No.10285 of 2021 and learned counsel for the respondent-accused in CRM-M No.10287 of 2021 and have also perused the files carefully. 8. Learned ASG for the petitioner-ED has contended that the applications, as initially moved by the ED for seeking the custody of the respondents-accused had been rejected by the trial Court on 18.02.2021, i.e on the very next d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re that though the instant petitions, which bear the date 03.03.2021, were pending at the time of the grant of the relief of regular bail to both the respondents by the Co-ordinate Bench vide the order dated 02.06.2021 but however, a perusal of the said order reveals that the factum of the pendency of the same does not find mention therein and this fact also seems to have not been brought to the notice of the Hon ble Supreme Court at the time of the passing of the aforesaid order on 20.10.2021. 11. It has categorically been observed by the Apex Court in Para No.22 in the judgment rendered in Satyajit Ballubhai Desai (supra) that:- the correct course for the investigating authorities seeking police remand of an accused who had been granted bail by the High Court, should have been to approach the High Court as power of the Magistrate to grant police remand after the accused has been granted bail by the High Court, would cease to exist and any direction to that effect can be permitted by the High Court only in view of the fact that the High Court considered it just and appropriate to enlarge the accused on bail and the Magistrate cannot be permitted to override the order of ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , rather, touched a different tangent by citing the case law to discard/ignore the same. 14. The observations made by the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi (supra) and by the Co-ordinate Bench in Ajit Singh @ Jit Singh (supra) as well as by the Calcutta High Court in Matang Sinh (supra) are of no avail to the respondents-accused because in Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi (supra), the respondent-accused had been arrested on 04.10.1991 and was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 05.10.1991 and on the request of the appellant, he was remanded to judicial custody till 11.10.1991 and on that day, his police custody was sought by the Investigating Officer but while on his way back, the respondent pretended to be ill and was taken to the hospital and was kept there up to 21.10.1991 and was remanded to judicial custody till 29.10.1991 and thereafter, the Investigating Officer again applied for his police custody which was declined whereas in the present case, the request made by the ED for the remand of the respondents to its custody, had been rejected by the trial Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
