9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the considered view of this Court, the same are inapposite to the factual scenario of this case. On perusal of the law laid down in the case of MAHDOOM BAVA VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [ 2023 (3) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] is concerned, the custodial interrogation was not required by CBI in that cases, hence due to different facts of the case, applicant of this case cannot be benefitted by the aforesaid case. So far as the judgements passed in the cases of PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL ANR. VERSUS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE THROUGH I.O. [ 2023 (2) TMI 1218 - SC ORDER] and RAGHVENDRA SINGH TOMAR APPELLANT VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [ 2023 (5) TMI 1282 - SC ORDER] , the facts of those cases are not applicable here, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cipal Corporation, Indore and his income was only Rs. 21 lakhs whereas he purchased movable and immovable property worth of Rs. 1,55,87,861/- and in this regard, he could not file any satisfactory reply or any documentary proof, hence he is liable for offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 also liable for offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 3. Shri Veer Kumar Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was yet to be arrested while the charge sheet has already been filed, hence, there is no need to arrest of the applicant. On this point, learned senior counsel has filed a copy of order dated 04.12.2023 passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel Shri Himanshu Joshi, Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of Directorate of Enforcement Bhopal Zonal Office, has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that this is a case where the applicant is not able to explain the sources of his income and in such type of offences anticipatory bail should not be granted. 5. With regard to parity, counsel for the respondent submitted that the present applicant is main accused in this case while co-accused Rahela Khan was made accused being wife of the present applicant. He further submitted that as per Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA'), the applicant can be released on bail only when the Court is satis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government. 7. Certainly, the petition of Rahela Khan was allowed by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 13070/2023. However, i n view of the aforesaid propositions, a woman can take benefit of the first proviso, where she can be released when the money laundering is of lesser amount. Since the applicant is main accused, the principle of parity is not applicable. I have bestowed anxious considerations to the precedents cited by learned Senior counsel for the applicant, but in the considered view of this Court, the same are inapposite to the factual scenario of this case. So far as the law laid down in the cases of A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In 'Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain' it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. 10. In another case of Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy and Another 2022 SCC online SC 1862 , Hon'ble Apex Court endorsing the aforesaid view and reversing the order of concerned High Court observed as under-: 32. ............In case of economic offences, which are having an impact on the society, the Court must be very slow in exercising the discretion under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
