Chattisgarh High Court
Mr. Deepesh Taunk vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 2 November, 2023
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630
Page 1 of 16
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1522 of 2023
Reserved on : 12.10.2023
Delivered on : 02.11.2023
Mr. Deepesh Taunk, S/o Late Mr. Niranjana Taunk, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Flat No. 102, Royal Green, Junwani Road, Bhilai Durg
(C.G.)
--- Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, GOI, Through its Assistant Director, Mr.
Nirmal Jharwal, Raipur Zonal Office, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001
--- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Harshwardhan Parganiha & Ms. Saloni
Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
CAV ORDER
1. This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the
applicant, who has been arrested on 23.01.2023 in connection
with Crime No. ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022
registered at Police Station- Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal
Office, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 3
& 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short
“the PMLA, 2002”).
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630
Page 2 of 16
2. The case of the prosecution is that during a search and seizure
action under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act conducted on
30.06.2022 one Mr. Suryakant Tiwari at a hotel room of Hotel
Shereton Grand, Bengaluru, certain incriminating materials are
said to have been found, based upon which a complaint was
lodged by the Income Tax Department at the Kadugodi, Police
Station Bengaluru alleging offences under Sections 186, 204
and 353 read with Section 120B of the IPC which led to the
registration of the FIR. Based upon investigation, the
Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR No. RPZO/09/2022. In
the course of the investigation, the present applicant was
summoned and finally the applicant was arrested on 23.01.2023.
3. It is further case of the prosecution that the prosecution has
recovered diaries from the possession of Smt. Soumya
Chourasiya and the main accused- Suryakant Tiwari, which
would reveal transaction of cash money between Smt. Soumya
Chourasiya and the main accused- Suryakant Tiwari. It is also
case of the prosecution that object of Suryakant Tiwari to tamper
and destroy the important documents as well as electronic
gadgets and Suryakant Tiwari along with his brother, Rajnikant
Tiwari and his associates Hemant Jaiswal, Jogendra Singh,
Moinuddin Quaraishi, Nikhil Chandrakar, Roshan Singh and
others were involved in a criminal conspiracy to run a parallel
system of collecting illegal levy on coal and were doing illegal
and unaccounted cash movement as per instructions of
Suryakant Tiwari. All the above mentioned associates of
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630
Page 3 of 16
Suryakant Tiwari had admitted in their statements recorded
before the Income Tax officials that they were doing the illegal
levy collection on the instructions of Suryakant Tiwari. The
proceeds received from the above referred to action were being
used for taking undue advantage and to influence public
servants by corrupt and illegal means and by exercise of
personal influence.
4. The role of the present applicant is that after verifying the bank
account of present applicant and his family member, it was found
that huge cash deposits were made in the bank account of seller
just prior to registry of land parcel. The present applicant has
also accepted regarding cash deposit in his statement. However,
he denied receiving any cash in the form of sale proceeds. He
has claimed that the deposits were on account of selling of fruits
and vegetables in one season which comes to Rs. 61,02,550/-
for the period between 27.01.2022 to 14.02.2022 but no bills
were produced and in the statement of Shri Chandrashekhar
Sinha recorded on 29.10.2022, he has stated that the bills
submitted by present applicant is bogus one. Thus, the present
applicant has prepared bogus bills to accommodate the illegal
cash obtained by him from Smt. Soumya Chaurasia. It is also
case of Enforcement Directorate that the source of cash is
nothing but illegal levy on coal transportation done by the cartel
of Suryakant Tiwari. It is also case of the Enforcement
Directorate that the applicant was in direct touch with Manish
Upadhyay and used to take cash from him in the name of farm
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630
Page 4 of 16
development.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant would submit that the
applicant had on one occasion sold a piece of ancestral land at
Village- Sevati, District- Durg to one Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasia
and Mr. Anurag Chaurasia in March 2022 for sale consideration
of 2.53 crore which was received through banking channels and
no other amount was received from these persons. He would
further submit that the applicant in pursuance of summon dated
18.10.2022 for appearance on 21.10.2022 had appeared on
11.30 am., interrogation was continued till 11.30 pm. Again he
was summoned on 26.10.2022 and 28.10.2022. He would
further submit that during investigation, he was subjected to
threaten to make statement against his will. He would also
submit that the applicant against the inaction of authorities has
made complaint on 01.11.2022 before the Outpost Incharge and
again preferred representation on 03.12.2022 before the
Enforcement Directorate elaborating the ill-treatment made out
against him. The documents were also annexed with the bail
application. He would further submit that the applicant submitted
an application before the learned Special Judge (PMLA), Raipur
for providing various documents on 20.12.2022. In the
meanwhile, the Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint on
10.12.2022 before Special Judge (PMLA), Raipur. He would
further submit that the present applicant has cooperated with the
investigation but on account of his refusal to make untrue
statement, he was arrested on 23.01.2023.
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630
Page 5 of 16
6. He would further submit that from bare perusal of the complaint,
it is quite vivid that the applicant is neither involved in schedule
offence nor he is involved with the alleged proceeds of crime. He
would further submit that condition as enumerated under Section
45 of the PMLA, 2002 for grant of bail, is satisfied. He would
further submit that the respondent authorities have acted in
violation of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in
case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary & others Vs. Union of
India & others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 and
would refer to paragraph 88 of the said judgment. He would
further submit that the applicant is not a flight risk and there is no
apprehension that he will plea or evade the process of law. He
would further submit that the applicant has appeared as and
when summons were issued and thus he joined the
investigation. Lastly he would submit that the applicant is in jail
since eight moths and trial may take more longer time for its final
disposal, hence, he would pray for releasing the applicant on
bail.
7. To substantiate his submission, learned Senior counsel for the
applicant would refer to the judgment in case of Vijay Madanlal
Chaudhary & others Vs. Union of India & others, reported in
2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, Jainam Rathod Vs. State of
Haryana & another (Crl. A. No. 640/2022), Sujay Desai Vs.
Serious Fraud Investigation Officer (Crl. A. No. 1023/2022),
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & others Vs. State of Punjab,
reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565, Dataram Singh Vs. State of
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630
Page 6 of 16
U.P., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 & Niranjan Singh & another
Vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & others, reported in (1980) 2
SCC 559.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/
Enforcement Directorate opposing the bail application would
submit that the diary seized by the Income Tax department
shows payment of Rs. 3 crore to Shri Manish Upadhyay for
purchase of land at Durg and in the later page, it is mentioned
that Manish Upadhyay has given a total of Rs. 5 crore cash to be
paid for land deals, 2 crore for which is for Sevti land. It has
been further contended that registration of land at Village- Sevti,
Hirri and Potiya was made on 04.03.2022 and the date of
registration is found to be identical to the date of cash transfer
mentioned in the seized papers. However, in the statement
recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 that the applicant
has admitted that he has not received any cash over the above
consideration value of the land sold by him and his family
members to the family members of Smt. Soumya Chaurasia.
However, the bank account of Shri Deepesh Taunk revealed that
cash deposit of Rs. 61.02 lacs were made just prior to registry of
the land and no proof was produced even Shri Chandreshekhar
Sinha whose statement was recorded under Section 50 of
PMLA, 2002 has admitted that fruits bills were bogus one. He
would further submit that Deepesh Taunk works as Supervisor at
M/s Om Agro Farms which has now been purchased by family
members of Smt. Soumya Chaurasia. On above factual matrix,
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630
Page 7 of 16
he would submit that as per Section 24 of the PMLA, 2002, the
burden of proof to prove non-involvement in the crime of money
laundering is upon the person who charged with the offence. The
present applicant has narrated the events while recording
statement under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002 which is a judicial
proceeding and he would submit that there is prima facie
sufficient material against the applicant, therefore, he would pray
for rejection of the bail application.
9. To substantiate his submission, he would also refer to the
judgment in case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI,
reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439, Anirudh Kamal Shukla Vs.
Union of India through Assistant Director Directorateof
Enforcement (Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application
under 438 Cr.P.C. No. 307/2022), State of Gujrat Vs. Mohanlal
Jitamalji Porwal, reported in Air 1987 SC 1321, Mohd. Arif Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India, BLAPL No.
2607/2020 (decided on 13.07.2020), reported in 2020 SCC
OnLine Ors 544, Aruna Chadha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5969, Chandrawati Vs.
State of U.P., reported in 1992 CriLJ 3634, Pratapbhai
Hamirbhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2012) 10
SCALE 237, Directorate of Enforcement Vs. M. Gopal Reddy
(Criminal Appeal No. 534/2023), Assistant Director,
Enforcement Directorate Vs. Dr. V.C. Mohan (Criminal
Appeal No. 21/2022) & Pooja Singhal Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement (B.A. No. 8937/2022).
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630
Page 8 of 16
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.
11. Before coming to the factual matrix of the case, it is expedient for
this Court to consider provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA,
2002 as well as law laid down by various High Courts and
Hon’ble the Supreme Court regarding the grant of bail under
PMLA, 2002. Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 reads as under:-
“Section 45 – Offences to be cognizable 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 own bond unless–]
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty
of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail:
Provided that a person, who, is under the age of
sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm [or is
accused either on his own or along with other co-
accused of money- laundering a sum of less than one
crore rupees], may be released on bail, if the Special
Court so directs:
Provided further that the Special Court shall not take
cognizance of any offence punishable under Section
4 except upon a complaint in writing made by–
(i) the Director; or
(ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State
Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the
Central Government by a general or special order
made in this behalf by that Government.
[(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any
other provision of this Act, no police officer shall
investigate into an offence under this Act unless
specifically authorised, by the Central Government by
a general or special order, and, subject to such
conditions as may be prescribed.]
(2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in [* * *]
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630
Page 9 of 16
sub-section (1) is in addition to the limitations under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or
any other law for the time being in force on granting of
bail.”
12. Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court in N. Umashankar
Vs. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement,
reported in MANU/SCOR/25324/2022, has examined Section 45
of the PMLA, 2002 and has held at paragraph 18 as under:-
“18. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the
respondent in the counter affidavit that the documents
collected would prima facie disclose that all the accused
have committed acts of money laundering under Section
3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and
punishable under Section 4 of the said Act and the
petitioners, during police custody also, did not co-
operate with them and despite the complaint has been
filed, further investigation is also in progress. Even
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.
7563-7565 of 2021, the respondent submitted that the
petitioners are not co-operating during the investigation.
Even before this court the learned Special Pubic
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 Pubic 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 conduct of
the petitioners, this court does not believe that the
petitioner are not guilty of the alleged offences and in
Page 38/41 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.
In the result, the Criminal Original Petitions are
dismissed.
No costs.”
13. Against the judgment passed by Madras High Court, the
accused- N. Umashankar has preferred SLP No. 620/2022
before Hon’ble the Supreme Court, which has been dismissed
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630
Page 10 of 16
on 25.02.2022. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has passed the
following order:-
“We are not inclined to interfere in these Special Leave
Petitions. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed
accordingly.
However, we direct the prosecution/Investigating Agency
to ensure that the trial is concluded with utmost
expedition. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.”
14. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Directorate of Enforcement Vs.
Aditya Tripathi (Criminal Appeal No. 1401/2023) decided on
12.05.2023 has held at paragraph 6 & 7 as under:-
“6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respective
respondent No. 1 – accused are facing the investigation
by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled
offences and for the offences of money laundering under
Section 3 of the PML Act punishable under Section 4 of
the said Act. An enquiry/investigation is still going on by
the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences in
connection with FIR No. 12/2019. Once, the
enquiry/investigation against respective respondent No. 1
is going on for the offences under the PML Act, 2002, the
rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 is required to be
considered. Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 reads as
under:-
“45. Offences to be cognizable 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 own bond unless–]
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to
oppose the application for such release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application,
the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he
is not likely to commit any offence while on bail:
Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen
years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm [or is accused
either on his own or along with other co-accused of
money- laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees],
may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs:
Provided further that the Special Court shall not take
cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 4
except upon a complaint in writing made by–
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630Page 11 of 16
(i) the Director; or
(ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State
Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the
Central Government by a general or special order made
in this behalf by that Government.
[(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other
provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into
an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised,
by the Central Government by a general or special order,
and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.]
(2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in [* * *]
sub-section (1) is in addition to the limitations under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any
other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.”
By the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) and while
granting bail, the High Court has not considered the
rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002.
6.1 Even otherwise, the High Court has not at all
considered the nature of allegations and seriousness of
the offences alleged of money laundering and the
offences under the PML Act, 2002. Looking to the nature
of allegations, it can be said that the same can be said to
be very serious allegations of money laundering which
are required to be investigated thoroughly.
6.2 Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the
respective respondent No. 1 that respective respondent
No. 1 were not named in the FIR with respect to the
scheduled offence(s) and/or that all the other accused are
discharged/acquitted in so far as the predicated offences
are concerned, merely because other accused are
acquitted/discharged, it cannot be a ground not to
continue the investigation in respect of respective
respondent No. 1. An enquiry/investigation is going on
against respective respondent No. 1 with respect to the
scheduled offences. Therefore, the enquiry/investigation
for the scheduled offences itself is sufficient at this stage.
6.3 From the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed
by the High Court, it appears that what is weighed with
the High Court is that chargesheet has been filed against
respective respondent No. 1 – accused and therefore, the
investigation is completed. However, the High Court has
failed to notice and appreciate that the investigation with
respect to the scheduled offences under the PML Act,
2002 by the Enforcement Directorate is still going on.
Merely because, for the predicated offences the
chargesheet might have been filed it cannot be a ground
to release the accused on bail in connection with the
scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002.
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630
Page 12 of 16
Investigation for the predicated offences and the
investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the
scheduled offences under the PML Act are different and
distinct. Therefore, the High Court has taken into
consideration the irrelevant consideration. The
investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the
scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 is till going
on.
7. As observed hereinabove, the High Court has neither
considered the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002
nor has considered the seriousness of the offences
alleged against accused for the scheduled offences under
the PML Act, 2002 and the High Court has not at all
considered the fact that the investigation by the
Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under
the PML Act, 2002 is still going on and therefore, the
impugned orders passed by the High Court enlarging
respective respondent No. 1 on bail are unsustainable
and the matters are required to be remitted back to the
High Court for afresh decision on the bail applications
after taking into consideration the observations made
hereinabove.”
15. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Manish Sisodia
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No. /
2023) (decided on 30.10.2023) has held at paragraph 26 which
is as under:-
“26. However, we are also concerned about the prolonged
period of incarceration suffered by the appellant – Manish
Sisodia. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement
48 , the appellant therein was granted bail after being kept
in custody for around 49 days 49 , relying on the
Constitution Bench in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and
Others v. State of Punjab 50 , and Sanjay Chandra v.
Central Bureau of Investigation 51 , that even if the
allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule
that bail should be denied in every case. Ultimately, the
consideration has to be made on a case to case basis, on
the facts. The primary object is to secure the presence of
the accused to stand trial. The argument that the appellant
therein was a flight risk or that there was a possibility of
tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses,
was rejected by the Court. Again, in Satender Kumar Antil
v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another 52 , this
Court referred to Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh v.
State of Punjab 53 and Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab
54 , to emphasise that the right to speedy trial is a
fundamental right within the broad scope of Article 21 of
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630Page 13 of 16
the Constitution. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), this
Court while highlighting the evil of economic offences like
money laundering, and its adverse impact on the society
and citizens, observed that arrest infringes the
fundamental right to life. This Court referred to Section 19
of the PML Act, for the in-built safeguards to be adhered to
by the authorised officers to ensure fairness, objectivity
and accountability. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra),
also held that Section 436A of the Code 56 can apply to
offences under the PML Act, as it effectuates the right to
speedy trial, a facet of the right to life, except for a valid
ground such as where the trial is delayed at the instance
of the accused himself. In our opinion, Section 436A
should not be construed as a mandate that an accused
should not be granted bail under the PML Act till he has
suffered incarceration for the specified period. This Court,
in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra
and Others 57 , held that while ensuring proper
enforcement of criminal law on one hand, the court must
be conscious that liberty across human eras is as
tenacious as tenacious can be.”
16. From the above stated legal position, it is necessary for the
applicant to prima facie establish that he is not involved in the
commission of offence under the PMLA, 2002 to enlarge on bail,
therefore, this Court is now considering the factual matrix as
projected by the applicant and the respondent to substantiate
their respective stands.
17. The submission made by learned Senior counsel for the
applicant that the applicant has sold the property to Smt. Shanti
Devi Chaurasia for consideration of Rs. 2.53 crore through
registered sale-deed and through banking channels, which
cannot be said to be amount of proceed of crime and his
submission that allegations made by the respondent that the
present applicant has received cash of Rs. 61.02 lacs over the
above sale proceeds, which were then deposited into his bank
account, is not proceed of crime, cannot be prima facie
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630
Page 14 of 16
considered for releasing the applicant on bail as the applicant in
his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 has
admitted that Mr. Anurag Chaurasia and Smt. Shanti Devi
Chaurasia have purchased the land and the sale proceeds of the
firm was Rs. 2,53,59,842/- and he was working as Supervisor in
the firm and in the further statement, he has admitted that he will
submit invoice related to sale proceeds of Rs. 61,02,550/- but he
has stated that he has no sale receipt as recorded on
26.10.2022. He has also admitted that he does not know the
buyers/related parties and he has no contact number and
address of the said party except CVC. He has also stated that
he has never sold Guava to these individual any time prior to the
transaction as detailed in the statement. He has also stated that
first time they were buying Guava from him.
18. Taking into consideration the statement recorded under Section
50 of the PMLA, 2002, wherein he has stated that the excess
amount of Rs. 61.02 lacs as proceed of sale of fruits but this was
denied by one Chandrashekhar Sinha in his statement recorded
under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 wherein he has stated that
the bill produced by the present applicant is bogus. From these
statements, it is quite vivid that prima facie involvement of the
applicant is also in the commission of offence under the PMLA,
2002. As such, twin conditions which are required for grant of
bail, are not available. Further submission made by learned
Senior counsel for the applicant that the applicant remained in
jail for more than 9 months, therefore, he is entitled to be
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630
Page 15 of 16
released on bail as trial may take some time, also deserves to
be rejected in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme
Court in case of Manish Sisodia (supra) wherein it has been
held at paragraph 28 as under:-
“28. Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an
offence should not become punishment without trial. If the
trial gets protracted despite assurances of the
prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be decided
within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be
meritorious. While the prosecution may pertain to an
economic offence, yet it may not be proper to equate
these cases with those punishable with death,
imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences
under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, kidnaping for
ransom, mass violence, etc. Neither is this a case where
100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded. The
allegations have to be established and proven. The right
to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a
long period, depending on the nature of the allegations,
should be read into Section 439 of the Code and Section
45 of the PML Act. The reason is that the constitutional
mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the
person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he
be ensured and given a speedy trial. When the trial is not
proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused,
the court, unless there are good reasons, may well be
guided to exercise the power to grant bail. This would be
truer where the trial would take years.”
19. Considering the records of the case, other material placed on
record, which prima facie shows involvement of the applicant in
crime in question, therefore, considering entirety of the matter,
this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is unable to satisfy
twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA,
2002, as such, it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
20. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. is liable to be and is hereby rejected.
21. However, this Court clarifies that the observations made in this
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26630
Page 16 of 16
judgment, either way, are only for disposal of the present bail
application, and these would not influence the trial court on the
merits of the case, which would proceed in accordance with law,
and decided on the basis of the evidence led before it. All
disputed factual and legal issues are left open.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
[ad_1]
Source link