2020 (6) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bail Application has been brought under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 10/2018 pending before the court of Special Judge, Communal Riot Cases / Special Sessions Court, Jaipur (Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the accused petitioner has been summoned through non bailable warrant for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. According to brief facts of the case it has been submitted that accused petitioner was not named in FIR No. 251/2015 registered by Anti Corruption Bureau under Sections 120B and 409 of IPC read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12(1)(a)(c)(d) and Sections 13(2) and 14 of the Preventi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ailable in this case are documentary evidence, which are lying with the respondent Department. 2a. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of the accused petitioner. It has been argued that when applied on the touchstone of the guidelines propounded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the case of accused petitioner falls squarely within the category wherein she is clearly entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail. She is an elderly lady of 64 years of age and suffers from serious ailments. Antecedents of the accused petitioner are clean. Hon'ble apex court has time and again emphasized that role played by the accused petitioner is a relevant factor for deciding the anticipatory bail application. Accused petitioner was not even ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....B. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 9159/2017, dated 19.07.2017) (v) Dhirendra Singh @ Chintu v. UOI, dated 12.05.2020 (vi) Tammana Begum v. Umanand Vijay, dated 12.05.2020 (vii) Manju Tanwar v. UOI, dated 17.09.2019 (viii) Deepa Hada v. UOI, dated 23.04.2018 3. On the contrary, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India strongly opposed the bail application and has filed reply on behalf of the respondent/s to this bail application filed under Section 438 of CrPC. 3a. It has been contended that accused petitioner has directly approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail without preferring the same before the learned court below. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of other co-accused persons has been rejected by a coordinate bench of this court on 03.03.2020 and by the apex court on 12.03.2020. Special emphasis has been laid upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Union of India, (2019) 9 SCC 24, wherein the apex court has held as under :- "78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain (1998) 2 SCC 105, it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail." 3c. Thus, it has been argued that Hon....