TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner granted anticipatory bail in money laundering case</h1> <h3>Deepa Heda W/o Shivcharan Heda Versus Union Of India Through Sitaram Meena, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate</h3> Deepa Heda W/o Shivcharan Heda Versus Union Of India Through Sitaram Meena, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate - TMI Issues Involved:Bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 45 (1) of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Special provision under Section 45 of the Act for females - Allegation of money laundering and purchase of properties - Opposition by Union of India - Anticipatory bail granted.Analysis:The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in response to Criminal Complaint No.1/2017 registered at the Special Sessions Judge in Jaipur under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for an offence under Section 45 (1) of the Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner, a female, was accused of purchasing residential and agriculture property in Bhilwara using laundered money. It was argued that due to the special provision under Section 45 of the Act for females and the attachment of properties by the Department, custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the complaint had already been filed, and the petitioner had been summoned by a non-bailable warrant.The counsel representing the Union of India opposed the bail application, claiming that the petitioner and her husband were involved in money laundering activities amounting to Rs.1.39 crores. After considering the arguments presented by both sides, the court deliberated on the necessity of custodial interrogation given the circumstances. It was noted that the complaint had been filed, the properties were already attached, and there was no immediate requirement for custodial interrogation. Consequently, the court leaned towards granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.In light of the above considerations, the court allowed the Anticipatory Bail Application and directed the petitioner to surrender before the concerned Court within two weeks of the order. The concerned Court was instructed to release the petitioner on bail as per the appropriate bail bonds deemed fit by the Court.
TaxTMI 