TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 1162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 4 of the PML Act. The applicant had already moved the designated Court for this purpose by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.150 of 2015 which is rejected vide order dated 25.02.2015. 3. Heard learned advocates. 4.1 Mr.Yogesh Lakhani, learned senior advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is being hounded by the State Authorities. It is submitted that, the very initiation of the proceeding in question is mala-fide exercise of powers on the part of the State Authorities. Learned advocate for the applicant has addressed this Court at length to contend as to how the action of the State lacks bona fide. Reference is made to the following offences registered against the applicant. (1) CR.-I No.3 of 2010 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Criminal Procedure, 1973 is very wide. It is also submitted that, true it is that the provisions of Section 45 of the PML Act, need to be kept in view but the applicant does satisfy those parameters as well, in the present case and therefore this Court may record satisfaction as required under Section 45 of the PML Act and grant the protection, as prayed for. Reliance is placed on the following decisions to submit that, anticipatory bail be granted. (1) Decision of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. (2) Decision of this Court in the case of Kottam Raju Vikram Rao Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1977 GLR 107. (3) Decision of this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Manekchand Kothari Vs. Union of India recorded on Special Criminal Application No.4496 of 2014 dated 16.01.2015. It is submitted that, this application be dismissed. 6.1 Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, the first aspect which needs to be addressed by this Court is, as to what are the parameters which need to be kept in view by this Court while considering this application. In this regard, reference needs to be made to Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 which 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 punishable fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail." 6.2 In view of the above provision, this Court need to arrive at the satisfaction that (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence, he is charged with, and further that (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 6.3 So far the second part i.e. 'likelihood of not committing any offence while on bail' is concerned, there is substantial force in the submission of learned senior advocate for the applicant that, 'the offence' needs to be understood as 'the offence under the PML Act' and not any other offence. So far this stipulation is concerned, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act reveals that it is pertaining to offences to be cognizable and non-bailable and begins with non-obstinate clause "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973" and mandates that no person accused of offence punishable for term of imprisonment for more than 3 years under Part A of the Schedule shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless; [i] the Public Prosecutor has been given opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and [ii] Where the Public Prosecutor opposes such application, the court has to satisfy about existence of reasonable grounds for believing that such accused person is not guilty of such offences and that he is not likely to commit such offences while on bail. The above ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atisfaction, in view of above observations of the Division Bench of this Court, this application needs to be dismissed. 7. The argument made on behalf of the applicant that he is already granted bail, on the same set of facts would not help him, for the reason that the present one is the case under the PML Act and the parameters are as noted above. 8. So far the allegation made by the applicant about the mala fide exercise of power by the State Authorities is concerned, it is noted that, the scope of this application is exercise of powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the said power needs to be exercised keeping in view the parameters stipulated under Section 45 of the PML Act. The position with regard ....