9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of Rs.36 lakhs, Rs.22 lakhs were given to Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat by Shri Lokesh Paliwal in cash and Rs.14 lakhs were kept by Shri Lokesh Paliwal himself. Investigation has been completed. Complaint has also been filed. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Allegation made against the petitioner- Lokesh Paliwal in the instant case is of Rs.36 lakhs, Rs.22 lakhs were given to Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat by him in cash and Rs.14 lakhs were kept for himself. Property identified of petitioner Lokesh Paliwal is 50% area of Plot No.123, Verma Colony, Sector-9, Hiran Magri, Udaipur and the total value of the said property is Rs.28,23,600/- (attached upto Rs.14 lakhs). This anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is, her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arayan Joshi has transferred an amount of Rs.36 lakhs in the account of Shri Lokesh Paliwal on the direction of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat and this amount came out of Proceeds of Crime (PoC) amounting to Rs.2,65,96,086/- which Shri Shiv Narayan Joshi has received as reimbursement of the forged Medical claim. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.36 lakhs, Rs.22 lakhs were given to Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat by Shri Lokesh Paliwal in cash and Rs.14 lakhs were kept by Shri Lokesh Paliwal himself. Learned counsel further submits that the statements of Lokesh Paliwal under Section 50 (3) of the PMLA Act, 2002 have been recorded on 18.12.2017 14.05.2019, wherein he stated that Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat has told him to collect money from an Officer from J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon the following judgments/ orders:- (i) Bharat Chaudhary Another v. State of Bihar Another (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 77, (ii) Uma Charan Sharma Others v. Union of India 2019 SCC Online Raj 4092: (2020) 1 RLW 460, (iii) Manju Tanwar v. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12011/2019 dt.17.09.2019, RHC), (iv) Deepa Heda v. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No.4619/2018 dt. 23.04.2018 RHC), (v) Shiv Narayan Joshi v. Umanand Vijay (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.2807/2019 dt. 05.11.2019 RHC). (vi) Jagdish Chandra Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement, (Criminal Appeal No.14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal confiscation after the guilt of the accused person is established by law. The burden of proof under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 rests on the accused. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner may be rejected. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also placed reliance upon the following judgments/orders:- (i) Rajkumar Daitapati v. Directorate Enforcement (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16124/2021 dt.11.11.2021 RHC), (ii) P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 24, (iii) Shiv Narayan Joshi v. Union of India Anr. (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing a petition for grant of anticipatory bail and the fact of taking cognizance or filing of a charge-sheet cannot by itself be construed as a prohibition against the grant of anticipatory bail. In our opinion, the courts i.e. the Court of Session, High Court or this Court has the necessary power vested in them to grant anticipatory bail in non-bailable offences under Section 438 of CrPC even when cognizance is taken or a charge-sheet is filed provided the facts of the case require the court to do so. In the case of Uma Charan Sharma (supra) , Hon ble Rajasthan High Court, at Para Nos.3 5, had held as under:- 3) Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the anticipatory bail application. Reliance has placed on P. Chidambaram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinue to cooperate in the investigation. In the present case, during PMLA investigation, it is found that Shri Shiv Narayan Joshi has transferred an amount of Rs.36 lakhs in the account of Lokesh Paliwal on the direction of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat and this amount came out of proceeds of crime amounting to Rs.2,65,96,086/- which Shri Shiv Narayan Joshi has received as reimbursement of the forged medical claims. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.36 lakhs, Rs.22 lakhs were given to Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat by Shri Lokesh Paliwal in cash and Rs.14 lakhs were kept by Shri Lokesh Paliwal himself. Investigation has been completed. Complaint has also been filed. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Allegation made against the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
