2023 (4) TMI 151 - HC - Money Laundering

Court denies bail due to non-appearance, grants one-week extension for fresh application.

Kusum Lata Versus Union Of India Thru. The Directorate Of Enforcement

The court upheld the trial court's rejection of the bail application due to the applicant's non-appearance, emphasizing the necessity of her presence. ... Seeking grant of Bail - Money Laundering - challenge to decision in the case of Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow vs. Yadav Singh and others - HELD THAT:- There are no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the case of Yadav Singh. However, considering the request of learned Senior Advocate and also considering the ailments and physical condition of the present applicant, as considered in earlier order liberty is given to the present applicant to appear before the learned trial court within one week from today. To be more precise on or before 1.2.2023 and file her bail application. The said bail application shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously preferably on the same date, if possible. It is further provided that the learned counsel for the applicant shall supply the advance copy of the bail application to the learned counsel for the opposite parties by 30.1.2023, so that the learned counsel for the opposite parties may seek instructions and may file objection, if so needed. Application disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the trial court's rejection of the bail application.2. Applicant's non-appearance in court due to health issues.3. Interim protection and previous court orders.4. Conditions for bail and compliance with court directives.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the trial court's rejection of the bail application:The applicant challenged the order dated 16.1.2023 issued by the Special Court, PMLA/Sessions Judge, Lucknow, which rejected her bail application on two grounds: the expiration of interim protection granted by the Apex Court and her absence in court. The court found no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the trial court's decision, stating that the applicant's presence was required for the bail application to be decided.2. Applicant's non-appearance in court due to health issues:The applicant's counsel argued that her serious health conditions, including a kidney transplant and other ailments, prevented her from appearing in person. The court acknowledged her medical conditions but emphasized the necessity of her presence in court. It was noted that her bail application was filed within the stipulated time, but her non-appearance led to its rejection.3. Interim protection and previous court orders:The court reviewed several interim protection orders from the Apex Court, including orders dated 7.9.2018, 19.4.2018, and 7.12.2020, which granted the applicant interim bail and protection from arrest. The Apex Court's order dated 16.12.2022 clarified that the applicant should 'appear' before the trial court instead of 'surrendering.' Despite these protections, the applicant's failure to appear in person led to complications.4. Conditions for bail and compliance with court directives:Considering the applicant's health and previous court orders, the court granted her one week to appear before the trial court and file a fresh bail application. The trial court was directed to hear and dispose of the application expeditiously, preferably on the same day. The court also mandated that the applicant's counsel provide an advance copy of the bail application to the opposing parties by 30.1.2023 to facilitate timely objections.Conclusion:The application was disposed of with specific instructions for the applicant to appear before the trial court by 1.2.2023 and file a fresh bail application, ensuring no coercive action against her within this period. The court highlighted that failure to comply would result in the loss of the order's benefits and allow the prosecution to take appropriate steps.