9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applications were filed earlier by the very same petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.10954, 10955 and 10958 of 2022, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party, passed the following order on 16.08.2022. The Petitioners have filed the above Criminal Original Petitions praying for Bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the first Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No. 10954 of 2022 was the Managing Director of the Company by name M/s.Disc Assets Lead India Limited (Company) called as DALIL, in short and the second Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.10954 of 2022 was the Joint Managing Director of the said Company. The Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.10955 of 2022 was the Founder Director and Managing Director of the said Company till the year 2009. The Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.10958 of 2022 was the employee of the said Company and had actively assisted the Directors of the Company. The Company was incorporated in the Year 2006 and was in the business of collection of deposits from customers all over Tamil Nadu. They had floated two schemes called ILPS and CDLPS by inducing delible general public to part with their money on false inducements and promise on profitable returns of immovable proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that this Court had not dealt with the aspects, which were relevant including the statutory bar for grant of Bail for the offences concerning Prevention of Money Laundering Act ( PMLA) 2002. 5. The Bail applications were once again heard by this Court and this Court by order dated 03.01.2022, dismissed the Bail applications, after elaborately considering the scope of Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, (PMLA) 2002, as amended and the facts of the instant case. 6. Thereafter, the Petitioners once again moved the Honourable Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) Nos.620-622, challenging the order passed by this Court, dismissing the Bail Applications. The Honourable Apex Court dismissed the said SLPs by order dated 25.02.2022. Thereafter, the Petitioners were arrested on 05.03.2022. 7. The Petitioners filed Bail applications before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases/ VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.Nos.1624, 1625 and 1626 of 2022. The learned Principal Special Judge dismissed the Bail applications since the Petitioners did not make out a case for Bail and there was no change in circumstances for grant of Bail after the orders passed by this Court dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent submitted that the Petitioners are not co-operating during the investigation. Even before this Court, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioners never co-operated for the investigation and therefore, the Petitioners should not be enlarged on Bail. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that even after the registration of the criminal complaint against the Petitioners, they have indirectly started new Companies by using other names. 19. In view of the past document of the Petitioners, this Court does not believe that the Petitioner are not guilty of the alleged offences and in such circumstances, this Court cannot give a finding that the Petitioners are not likely to commit offence while on Bail. It is also alleged that if the Petitioners are enlarged on Bail, there is every likelihood that the Petitioners may flee the jurisdiction of this Court to avoid the process of law. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to grant Bail to the Petitioners... 11. The Honourable Apex Court passed the following order on 25.02.2022 in the SLP(Crl) Nos.620 622 of 2022 filed c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A 2002, after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India and another, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 1 , striking down the earlier provision relating to bail, cannot operate retrospectively and as such, the petitioners' bail applications have to be considered on the basis of the general law relating to bail and the petitioners need not satisfy the twin conditions. 3 (i). The learned Special Public Prosecutor per contra submitted that the earlier bail applications filed before this Court were dismissed on the ground that the twin conditions have not been satisfied by the petitioners and that the petitioners have not challenged the said order. (ii) The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and Others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 , Section 45 of the amended Act has to operate retrospectively. (iii) The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioners have to be in custody for a period of one half of the maximum period of imprisonment to invoke Section 436A of Cr.P.C. 4. We have consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
