9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission of offences punishable Under Sections 341/328/ 324/354-C/370/386/387/388/389/419/420/ 465/506/120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC), 1860 and Under Section 66-E/67 of the IT Act. In these FIRs. against the Petitioner and others, it was alleged that the Petitioner and other co-accused persons had extorted crores of Rupees from different rich people by blackmailing them to get their video footage containing objectionable and inappropriate photographs viral. The aforesaid cases were investigated into by the local police, but in the course of investigation, the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar claiming the offences alleged against the Petitioner and others to be scheduled offences as defined Under Section 2(1)(y) of the PMLA instituted a complaint against the Petitioner and others before the Special Court under PMLA, Bhubaneswar for commission of offence U/S. 3 of PMLA which is punishable U/S. 4 of PMLA. It is stated in the complaint that soon after registration of the aforesaid police cases, PMLA Case No. 10 of 2022 was recorded against the Petitioner and others for commission of aforesaid offence under PMLA and the matter was investigated into by ED. It is ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed if found relevant in subsequent paragraph. 4. Addressing the rival submissions, this Court now considers it apt to answer the first contention as advanced for the Petitioner as to whether there was total non-compliance of Sec. 19 of the PMLA while arresting the Petitioner. In this regard for non-compliance of Section 19 of the PMLA, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the certified copy of the order sheet dated 13.12.2022 recorded in CMC (PMLA No. 10 of 2022) which go to indicate that the Petitioner was produced in custody on that day after completion of remand period of 7 days. It is, therefore, suggestive of the fact that the Petitioner was neither taken into custody nor produced before the Special Court for the first time on that day, rather she was produced and taken into custody earlier just 7 days before that day. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of ED that the Petitioner was formally arrested on 13.12.2022 at about 12.45 PM on her submission to custody on an oral intimation of arrest by the Arresting Officer in presence of the father of the Petitioner and one independent witness by following due procedure laid down under Cr.P.C. and the Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siders it apt to refer to the decision in Pankaj Bansal Vrs. Union of India & Ors; (2023) SCC Online SC 1244, wherein the Apex Court while dealing with a similar matter in respect of non-compliance of Sec. 19 of the PMLA held as under:- "18. Viewed in this contest, the remand order dated 15.06.2022 passed by the learned Vacation Judge/Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchakula reflects total failure on his part in discharging his duty as per the expected standard. The learned Judge did not even record a finding that he perused the grounds of arrest to ascertain whether the ED had recorded reason to believe that the appellants were guilty of an offence under the act of 2002 and that there was proper compliance with the mandate of Sec. 19 of the Act, 2002". 5. Besides, the relevant order sheet of the Special Court dated 13.12.2022 reflects that Petitioner-accused Archana Nag was produced in custody after completion of remand period of 7 days and she was again given in the custody of ED for another 6 days. In this aforesaid situation, when liberty of a person is dearest to him/her, it should not be interfered with lightly or casually and the agency taking a person accused of an offence on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be a cause for delay in the trial in this case due to inability of the ED to apprehend the co-accused vis-a-vis the petitioner's incarceration in custody as a under trial prisoner for near about 1 year and in the context, it is quite uncertain as to when the trial will commence and how much time it would require for completion since it has not been disputed that the complaint in PMLA now stands posted for execution of warrant issued against co-accused and the case record against the Petitioner has not yet been separated. In this regard, it is considered profitable to refer to the decision in Tarun Kumar Vrs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement; (2023) SCC Online SC 1486, wherein the Apex Court has held that "when the detention of the accused is continued by Court, the Courts are expected to conclude the trial within a reasonable time, further ensuring the right of this speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution". It is also not disputed that the Petitioner was already subjected to custodial interrogation by the ED. In the aforesaid situation, this Court considers that the Petitioner has successfully demonstrated her case for relaxation of compliance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Officer of ED or tamper with the evidence, (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court in seisin of the case on each and every date of posting without fail unless her attendance is dispensed with and in case the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.229-A of IPC in accordance with law, (iii) The petitioner shall deposit her Passport, if any, in the Court in seisin of the case till conclusion of trial, unless she is permitted to take back such Passport to use for specific purpose during the pendency of case. (iv) The Petitioner shall inform the Court as well as the ED as to her place of residence during the trial by providing her mobile number(s), residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of residence. The Petitioner shall not switch off her mobile phone or change its number without informing the Court. (v) In case the petitioner misuses the liberty of bail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
