TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 804
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant who is the accused in Complaint No. 8 of 2017 relating to offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('the PMLA Act') and who is in custody since 27.11.2019, has questioned the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Misc. Case No. 12568 of 2019, whereby the High Court rejected his prayer for bail while providing for expeditious proceedings in the trial and while giving him liberty to move for bail afresh, if the trial was not concluded within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of its order. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the appellant, who was then working as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the PMLA Act was initiated on 23.03.2010 and thereafter, Complaint Case No. 8 of 2017 has been lodged under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act. Put in a nutshell, it is alleged, as regards the offences under PMLA Act, that after investigation, evidence in relation to money laundering was also found against the appellant and proceeds of crime were to the tune of INR 1,38,63,445/-. The High Court took note of the relevant background aspects and the nature of accusations in the impugned order dated 25.11.2020. The High Court did not feel inclined to grant the concession of bail at the given stage but found it just and proper to direct expeditious proceedings in the trial while giving liberty to the appellant to apply for bail afresh at a late....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no allegation of any misuse of liberty by the appellant. Learned ASG, Shri S.V. Raju, with his firmness as also fairness, has made the submissions on behalf of the respondent, with reference to the nature of accusations against the appellant and the fact that the appellant earlier avoided to appear and for that matter, non-bailable warrants had to be issued. However, there is no dispute about the present status of the trial that only the examination-inchief of the first prosecution witness has been recorded. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that continuing with the detention of the appellant to face the trial in the present case wo....