9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... उपरोक्त सभी दस प्रकरणों के अप्रार्थीगण/ अभियुक्तगण (जिन्हें आगे "अभियुक्तगण" कहा जाएगा) को विचारण न्यायालय द्वारा कथित रूप से दी गई जमानत सुविधा को निरस्त करने हेतु आवेदन अंतर्गत धारा 439(2) दण्ड प्रक्रिया संह& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ई कि कुछ आरोपी द्वारा षड्यंत्र रचते हुए सिंडीकेट बैंक शाखा एमआई रोड़ जयपुर, मालवीय नगर जयपुर, उदयपुर में विभिन्न व्यक्तियों के पहचान दस्तावेजों का दुरुपयोग करते हुए 386 से अधिक बैंक खाते खुलवाकर उनमें जाली ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;वं विशिष्ट न्यायाधीश (सीबीआई प्रकरण) क्रम-3 जयपुर महानगर प्रथम (जिसे आगे "विचारण न्यायालय" कहा जाएगा) में धारा 3/4 धन शोधन निवारण अधिनियम 2002 (जिसे आगे "अधिनियम 2002" कहा जाएगा) के आरोप प्रमाणित मानते हुए अभियुक्तगण को गì ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;त्र निष्पादित करने के आदेश दिए, जिनकी पालना हो चुकी है और अभियुक्तगण विचारण में नियमित रूप से उपस्थित हो रहे हैं। 4. प्रवर्तन निदेशालय की ओर से प्रस्तुत उपरोक्त सभी आवेदन अंतर्गत धारा 439 (2) दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहि ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #2309;भियुक्तगण अभिरक्षा में निरुद्ध होने योग्य हैं। 5. इसके विपरीत विद्वान अधिवक्तागण - अभियुक्तगण द्वारा सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निर्णय तरसेम लाल बनाम प्रवर्तन निदेशालय 2024 एससीसी ऑनलाईन (एससी) 971 प्रस्तुत करते ह&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;ियुक्तगण निरूद्ध नहीं है तो जमानत का प्रश्न उत्पन्न नहीं होता है, अतः "अधिनियम 2002" की धारा 45 के प्रावधान आकृष्ट नहीं होते हैं। 6. "अधिनियम 2002" की धारा 45 के प्रावधान सुसंगत हैं जो निम्नानुसार हैं:- "45. Offence to be congnizable and non- bailable- (1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... summons, he shall not be treated as if he is in custody. Therefore, it is not necessary for him to apply for bail. However, the Special Court can direct the accused to furnish bond in terms of Section 88 of the CrPC; d) In a case where the accused appears pursuant to a summons before the Special Court, on a sufficient cause being shown, the Special Court can grant exemption from personal appearance to the accused by exercising power under Section 205 of the CrPC; e) If the accused does not appear after a summons is served or does not appear on a subsequent date, the Special Court will be well within its powers to issue a warrant in terms of Section 70 of the CrPC. Initially, the Special Court should issue a bailable warrant. If it is not possible to effect service of the bailable warrant, then the recourse can be taken to issue a non-bailable warrant; f) A bond furnished according to Section 88 is only an undertaking by an accused who is not in custody to appear before the Court on the date fixed. Thus, an order accepting bonds under Section 88 from the accused does not amount to a grant of bail; g) In a case where the accused has furnished bonds under Section 88 of the Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired, even though the accused was never arrested under Section 19. However, when the ED wants to conduct a further investigation concerning the same offence, it may arrest a person not shown as an accused in the complaint already filed under Section 44(1)(b), provided the requirements of Section 19 are fulfilled. 24. We are making it clear that we are dealing with a fact situation where the accused shown in the complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA was not arrested by the ED by the exercise of power under Section 19 of the PMLA till the complaint was filed." 8. तरसेम लाल के मामले में भी अभियुक्तगण के विरुद्ध धारा 3/4 "अधिनियम 2002 " के आरोप में परिवाद प्रस्तुत हुआ था। संपूर&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता के तहत बंधपत्र निष्पादित करने का आदेश देता है। चूंकि अभियुक्तगण गिरफ्तार नहीं है तो उनकी रिहाई अथवा जमानत का प्रश्न ही उत्पन्न नहीं होता है। जमानत आवेदन लंबित होने पर ही धारा 45 " अधिनिय ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 366; 45 "अधिनियम 2002" के प्रावधान आकृष्ट होते हैं। न्यायिक दृष्टांत सतेन्द्र कुमार अंतिल बनाम सीबीआई व अन्य (2021) 10 एससीसी 773 तथा विजय मदल लाल चौधरी में प्रतिपादित सिद्धांत के अनुसार धारा 45 " अधिनियम 2002" के प्रावधानों में विह&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5;ा यह निवेदन रहा है कि सतेन्द्र कुमार अंतिल व विजय मदन लाल चौधरी के मामले में धारा 88 दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता के प्रावधानों पर विचार नहीं हुआ है। वर्तमान मामला अभियुक्तगण की जमानत पर रिहाई से संबंधित नहीं है और ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... लाल के मामले में उपरोक्त दोनों निर्णय विजय मदन लाल चौधरी व सतेन्द्र कुमार अंतिल प्रस्तुत व संदर्भित हुए हैं तथा उन पर विचार के उपरांत ही तरसेम लाल का निर्णय दिनांक 16.05.2024 को पारित हुआ है । 12. तरसेम लाल के निर्णय मे& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; अभियुक्त अधिकार स्वरूप प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है, परंतु वर्तमान मामले में अनुसंधान अधिकारी द्वारा अनुसंधान के दौरान सभी अभियुक्तगण को गिरफ्तार नहीं करने हेतु सचेत निर्णय लिया है, अभियुक्तगण अपन ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #2352;ान गिरफ्तार नहीं किया गया, उनके विरुद्ध परिवाद प्रस्तुत किया है। न्यायालय द्वारा प्रसंज्ञान लिया जाकर अभियुक्तगण को आहूत किया गया। उपरोक्त दोनों ही मामलों में गिरफ्तारी की आशंका के फलस्वरूप अभियुक्त ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 352;ते हुए यह अभिमत प्रकट किया कि ऐसे मामलों में धारा 88 दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता के प्रावधान आकृष्ट होते हैं। बिजय केतन साहू बनाम प्रवर्तन निदेशालय के मामले में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित निर्णय 29.07.2024 न ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #2381;रस्तुत होने के बाद धारा 200- 205 दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता के प्रावधान लागू होते हैं । चूंकि अभियुक्त अभिरक्षा में नहीं है अतः जमानत पर रिहाई का प्रश्न उत्पन्न नहीं होता है और धारा 45 "अधिनियम 2002" के प्रावधान किसी भी रूप ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1;ा के प्रतिकूल होकर गंभीर प्रकृति का अपराध है, अभियुक्तगण के विरुद्ध प्रारंभ से लेकर अंत तक इस अपराध के संबंध में सुदृढ़ दस्तावेजी व मौखिक साक्ष्य रही है, अतः ऐसी स्थिति में वे धारा 88 दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता के ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #2325;ि इस मामले में अनुसंधान अधिकारी अथवा प्रवर्तन निदेशालय की कार्यप्रणाली निष्पक्ष नहीं रही है। इस संबंध में उनके द्वारा सहअभियुक्त हिमांश उर्फ हिमांशु के मामले में पारित माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के नि ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 81;थितियों को देखते हुए उसे अंतरिम जमानत की सुविधा दी गई और इस जमानत सुविधा का विरोध भी प्रवर्तन निदेशालय द्वारा किया गया। संबंधित क्रिमिनल अपील नंबर 282 / 2024 (एसएलपी) क्रिमिनल नंबर 2438 / 20274 हिमांश उर्फ हिमांशु बनाम प्र ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 340;मान समय में है । उनके द्वारा अभियुक्तगण के संबंध में एक समय में अनुचित उदारता तथा तत्पश्चात् अत्यधिक कठोर दृष्टिकोण अपनाया जाना, समान आरोप से संबंधित कुछ अभियुक्तगण को गिरफ्तार कर उनके जमानत आवेदन का वि ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... णय पारित किया है उसके आधार पर ही निश्चित रूप से प्रवर्तन निदेशालय को अपनी कार्यप्रणाली पर आत्मचिंतन व आत्मविश्लेषण करना अपेक्षित हो जाता है। अतः कार्यालय को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि उसकी एक प्रति सचिव, वित ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2330;नानुसार खारिज होने योग्य है। 21. परिणामतः प्रार्थी प्रवर्तन निदेशालय द्वारा प्रस्तुत यह सभी आवेदन अंतर्गत धारा 439(2) दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता खारिज किये जाते हैं। Hindi to English translated by Google ORDER 1. The Enforcement Directorate has filed applications under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail facility allegedly granted by the trial court to the applicants/accused (hereinafter refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he challenged order without considering and satisfying the same and hence, the bail orders are liable to be cancelled and the accused should be detained in custody. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the accused, citing the decision of the Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine (SC) 971, submitted that when the Enforcement Directorate has taken a conscious decision not to arrest the accused during the investigation and the complaint has been filed without arresting the accused, then in such a situation, this case is fully covered by the decision in Tarsem Lal. They also submit that if the accused are in custody, then the question of release and bail arises. In the present case, since the accused are not in custody, the question of bail does not arise, hence the provisions of Section 45 of the "Act 2002" are not attracted. 6. The provisions of section 45 of the "Act 2002" are relevant which are as follows:- "45. Offence to be congnizable and non- bailable- (1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence [under this Act] shall be released on bail or on his ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, then the recourse can be taken to issue a non-bailable warrant; f) A bond furnished according to Section 88 is only an undertaking by an accused who is not in custody to appear before the Court on the date fixed. Thus, an order accepting bonds under Section 88 from the accused does not amount to a grant of bail; g) In a case where the accused has furnished bonds under Section 88 of the CrPC, if he fails to appear on subsequent dates, the Special Court has the powers under Section 89 read with Sections 70 of the CrPC to issue a warrant directing that the accused shall be arrested and produced before the Special Court; If such a warrant is issued, it will always be open for the accused to apply for cancellation of the warrant by giving an undertaking to the Special Court to appear before the said Court on all the dates fixed by it. While cancelling the warrant, the Court can always take an undertaking from the accused to appear before the Court on every date unless appearance is specifically exempted. When the ED has not taken the custody of the accused during the investigation, usually, the Special Court will exercise the power of cancellation of the warrant without insisting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Enforcement Directorate has decided not to arrest the accused during the investigation using the powers of Section 19 of the "Act 2002" and the complaint has been filed, then in such a situation, the trial court takes cognizance and orders the accused to execute a bond under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely to remain present in the trial. Since the accused are not arrested, the question of their release or bail does not arise. The provisions of Section 45 of the "Act 2002" are attracted only when the bail application is pending. The present case is fully covered by the above decision of Tarsem Lal and no dispute remains in this regard. 9. It is submitted by the learned ASG that the decision in Tarsem Lal is of a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereas the earlier decision in Vijay Madal Lal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others (2022) is of a larger bench, wherein it has been held that the provisions of Section 45 of the "Act 2002" are attracted in all proceedings including bail. As per the judicial precedent Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI and others (2021) 10 SCC 773 and the principle enunciated in Vijay Madal Lal Choudhary, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d strong grounds. 13. In the case of ABLAPL No. 3735/2023 Nalini Prasti vs ED BBSR and other case ABLAPL No. 3541/2023 Bijay Ketan Sahu vs ED Bhubaneswar decided by the Orissa High Court, the accused were not arrested during the investigation despite the crime of section 3/4 "Act 2002" being proven by the investigating officer, a complaint has been filed against them. The court took cognizance and summoned the accused. In both the above cases, due to the fear of arrest, the accused sought the facility of anticipatory bail, which was rejected and when SLP was filed by the accused in separate cases before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.07.2024 in SLP No. SLP (Crl.) No. 8325/2024 filed on behalf of Bijay Ketan Sahu and orders dated 06.05.2024 and 26.07.2024 passed in SLP No. 16396/2024 in the case of Nalini Prasti set aside the decision of Orissa High Court and opined that the provisions of Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are attracted in such cases. The decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.07.2024 in the case of Bijay Ketan Sahu vs Enforcement Directorate is as follows:- "1. Leave granted. 2. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigating officer or the Enforcement Directorate in this case has not been fair. In this regard, they drew the attention of the court to the decision dated 08.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of co-accused Himansh alias Himanshu. 18. Accused Himansh alias Himanshu Verma has been a co-accused in the same case, his case is not different from the present accused but is less but despite this he was arrested and his bail and interim bail were also opposed. In view of the provisions of Section 45 "Act 2002", the regular bail application of the accused was rejected by this court. Later, in view of the circumstances of the case, he was given the facility of interim bail and this bail facility was also opposed by the Enforcement Directorate. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 08.07.2024 in the related Criminal Appeal No. 282/2024 (SLP) Criminal No. 2438/20274 Himansh alias Himanshu vs Enforcement Directorate is as follows:- "1. Leave granted. 2. We are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment on the sole ground that the mastermind of the alleged offence named Bharat Bomb has never been arrested in view of the statement made on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
