9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed offences in connection with FIR No. 12/2019. Once, the enquiry/investigation against respective respondent No. 1 is going on for the offences under the PML Act, 2002, the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 is required to be considered. From the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court, it appears that what is weighed with the High Court is that chargesheet has been filed against respective respondent No. 1 accused and therefore, the investigation is completed. However, the High Court has failed to notice and appreciate that the investigation with respect to the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 by the Enforcement Directorate is still going on. Merely because, for the predicated offences the chargesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhakar , Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria , AOR For the Respondent : Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi , AOR Mr. Aman Lekhi , Sr. Adv. Mr. Varun K Chopra , Adv. Mr. Ayush Jindal , Adv. Mr. Yugant Sharma , Adv. Mr. Mehul Sharma , Adv. M/S. Vkc Law Offices , AOR JUDGMENT M. R. SHAH , J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition Nos. 1146/2021 and 1147/2021, by which, the High Court has allowed the said bail applications and has directed to enlarge respective respondent No. 1 on bail in connection with the offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the PML Act, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That respective respondent No. 1 herein in respective appeals were arrested on 19.01.2021, therefore, they filed the present bail applications before the High Court to enlarge them on bail in connection with the aforesaid investigation/case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate. By the impugned orders, the High Court has directed to enlarge respondent No. 1 in respective appeals on bail. The impugned orders passed by the High Court enlarging respondent No. 1 in respective appeals on bail in the case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, are the subject matters of present appeals. 3. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG, has appeared on behalf of the appellant Enforcement Directorate and Shri Rakesh Khanna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icated offences others accused have been acquitted/discharged. 4.2 It is further submitted that as the investigation is over and the chargesheet has been filed, the High Court has rightly enlarged the accused respective respondent No. 1 on bail. It is submitted that as the accused are on bail since March, 2021, the impugned orders passed by the High Court may not be interfered by this Court at this stage. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respective respondent No. 1 accused are facing the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences and for the offences of money laundering under Section 3 of the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government. [(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.] (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in [* * *] sub-section (1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court has failed to notice and appreciate that the investigation with respect to the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 by the Enforcement Directorate is still going on. Merely because, for the predicated offences the chargesheet might have been filed it cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail in connection with the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002. Investigation for the predicated offences and the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act are different and distinct. Therefore, the High Court has taken into consideration the irrelevant consideration. The investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 is till goi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
