9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Parganas by an order dated 20th August, 2018. Counsel submits that the petitioner had been arrested previously on 6th April, 2018 by the Customs Authorities and was served with a detention order by the Government of India under the provisions of the COFEPOSA proceeding arising out of the same allegations. It is submitted that petitioner had, thereafter, been released by an order dated 16th August, 2018 of the Advisory Committee of the Government of India on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner. The petitioner was also granted bail on 20th August, 2018 by the CJM, North 24 Parganas. Counsel submits that the petitioner had already been in custody for 55 days and will be liable to be released under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rogation of the petitioner. The order further records that since one of the co-accused was released on bail, further detention of the petitioner was not deemed to be necessary for the purpose of investigation. Third, the grounds on which the petitioner was arrested on 9th March, 2021 appear to be the same grounds for which the petitioner was arrested on 6th April, 2018. This would appear from Annexure 'P-6' to the application which sets out the ground for arrest of the petitioner under Section 19 of the PMLA pursuant to an order of the Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate. Fourth, the contention with regard to overarching importance of Section 45 of the PMLA has considerably been diluted by Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. UOI & Ors.; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the order prayed for. There is also no evidence of the petitioner having misused his liberty after grant of bail after 20th August, 2018. The copy of the order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court shows that the order of detention under COFEPOSA of two of the co-accused was set aside by an order dated 27th August, 2018 in W.P. (CRL) 1971/2018 and W.P. (CRL) 1977/2018. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as stated above, this court is of the view that the petitioner should not further be kept in custody. The petitioner shall accordingly be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be a local resident to the satisfactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
