9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adv. Mr. Hitarth Raja,Adv. Ms. Shweta Desai,Adv. Ms. Abhi Priya Rai,Adv JUDGMENT B. R. GAVAI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application Nos.1675 and 1739 of 2024, vide which the learned Single Judge has refused to grant bail to the appellant herein. 3. Though the matter has been argued at length by Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri D.S. Naidu and Shri Vikram Chaudhri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Shri S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General of India (for short, 'ASG') for the respondent(s), at length; learned ASG has suggested that this Court should avoid elaborate discussions on the merits, inasmuch as any observations may prejudice the rights of either of the parties at the trial. 4. We appreciate the fairness of the learned ASG in suggesting the Court not to record the detailed elaborations on the merits of the case. It has been a consistent view of this Court that the Courts should avoid elaborate discussion at the stage of considering application for bail. We wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that the appellant has formatted her mobile set in order to destroy the evidence which was against her. 9. Learned ASG further submits that the sequence as to in what manner the accused Arun Pillai has retracted his statement would clearly show that it is the present appellant, who has a role to play. He submits that though the statement of Arun Pillai under Section 50 of the PMLA was recorded on 10.11.2022 after a period of more than three months, he has retracted the statement on 09.03.2023. He further submits that it is relevant to note that the first summons were issued to the present appellant on 07.03.2023 i.e., two days prior to the day Arun Pillai retracted his statement. He therefore submits that the Court will have to draw an inference that the appellant is indulging in influencing the witnesses. 10. On perusal of the record, we find that in CBI case charge-sheet has been filed and in ED case complaint has been filed. As such, the custody of the appellant herein is not necessary for the purpose of investigation. 11. The appellant has been behind the bars for the last five months. As observed by us in the case of Manish Sisodia (supra), taking into consideration t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sabha, she served on several committees. She had initiated a 'Free Meal Initiative' in her constituency, providing meals at state hospitals and during the pandemic. She is also the founder of the Telangana Jagruti Skill Centre, offering vocational training to youth, and as per her pleadings has been involved in educating poor children in the Nalgonda district since 2006. It is claimed in the pleadings that she is a prominent figure in the Telangana statehood movement. She holds a Bachelor's degree in Engineering and a Master's degree in Sciences. She has also served as the National Commissioner of Bharat Scouts and Guides since 2005 amongst many other achievements mentioned in the pleadings. 66. It is heartening to note that the applicant Smt. K. Kavitha, is a highly qualified and wellaccomplished person, having made significant contributions to politics and social work as enlisted by her in her pleadings. The same were not disputed by the investigating agencies. Her educational qualification and the activities, she has enlisted for the betterment of society in the State of Telangana are essentially, one side of herself and is impressive. However, while deciding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, however, it cannot lose sight of the serious allegations levelled by the prosecution and the evidence collected during the course of the investigation and presented before the Court. 21. The learned Single Judge thereafter proceeds to observe that the present appellant cannot be equated to a "vulnerable woman". 22. We find that the learned Single Judge erroneously observed that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA is applicable only to a "vulnerable woman". 23. We further find that the learned Single Judge totally misapplied the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 6 SCC 401 : 2023 INSC 1073. 24. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra) would show that this Court has observed that the Courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA and similar provisions in the other Acts. The Court observes that the persons of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable may sometimes be misused by unscrupulous elements and made scapegoats for committing such crime. 25. No doubt that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
