TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions Judge-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, Gurugram, (for short, 'the trial Court') in the Enforcement Case Information Report bearing No.01/HIU/2019 (here-in-after to be referred as 'the ECIR') and also for remanding the custody of both the respondents-accused to it (the ED) as envisaged under Section 167 Cr.P.C and these petitions are being taken up together for discussion and adjudication as the genesis thereof lies in the same criminal case and similar questions of law and facts are involved therein. 2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the common facts, as culled out from the documents/material available on the record, which have culminated in the filing of these petitions, are that on the basis of the complaint moved by the District Town Planner, Gurugram, a criminal case was registered against Chintels India Private Limited, Shobha Developers Limited and QVC Reality Company Limited, at Police Station Bajghera, District Gurugram, vide FIR No.0291 dated 13.12.2018 (Annexed as P-3 in both the petitions) under Section 420 IPC and Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (for short, 'the Act of 1975'), with the allegations that licences No.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s one of the Scheduled Offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, 'the PML Act') and the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act were invoked therein. 4. After the presentation of the supplementary Challan, both the respondents-accused were arrested again and on 17.02.2021, the ED moved applications in the Court for seeking their custody but vide the separate orders dated 18.02.2021 (Annexed as P-1 in the petitions) passed thereon, the trial Court declined the above-said request. Feeling aggrieved by the afore-mentioned orders, the ED preferred CRM-M Nos.8825 and 8827 of 2021 to assail the same and vide the common order passed therein on 01.03.2021 (Annexed as P-14 in these petitions), the Co-ordinate Bench set-aside the said orders (Annexures P-1) and remitted the matter to the trial Court with the direction to decide the same afresh. In compliance of the said order, the trial Court heard both the parties but vide the separate orders dated 02.03.2021 (Annexed as P-15 in both the petitions), it again declined/rejected the prayer of the ED for remanding the custody of the respondents-accused to it. Feeling dis-satisfied with the above-mentione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contended that the applications, as initially moved by the ED for seeking the custody of the respondents-accused had been rejected by the trial Court on 18.02.2021, i.e on the very next day of their arrest, vide the orders Annexures P-1 and the ED had immediately approached this Court to assail the said orders by filing the petitions bearing CRM-M Nos.8825 and 8827 of 2021 and vide the common order dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure P-14) as passed therein, the matter had been remitted to the trial Court with the direction to decide the same afresh but vide the impugned orders (Annexures P-15), the trial Court has again illegally declined the afore-mentioned request of the ED without appreciating the gravity of the offences involved in the case and also the contentions as raised by the ED before it, while blatantly ignoring the order Annexure P-14 and since the matter remained pending in the Courts during the first 15 days from the date of the arrest of the respondents-accused, therefore, the provisions of Section 167 Cr.P.C would not create any bar for remanding their (respondents') custody to the ED even at this stage. To buttress his contentions, he has placed reliance upon Parimal Kuma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court only in view of the fact that the High Court considered it just and appropriate to enlarge the accused on bail and the Magistrate cannot be permitted to override the order of bail even if it be for a brief period of few days." From these observations, it becomes quite explicit that in view of the above-cited order dated 20.10.2021 as passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court does not remain competent any more to consider and adjudicate upon the prayer as made by the ED in the present petitions. It being so, the matter involved in the same, now, survives before this Court for the purpose of the academic discussion only because in the present scenario, the ED, if it deems it expedient and essential, will have to resort to the appropriate remedy, as may be permissible to it under law, to seek the redressal of its grievance as canvassed in the instant petitions. 12. As regards the legality and validity of the impugned orders (Annexures P-15) handed down by the trial Court on 02.03.2021, the same have been passed in pursuance of the following directions, as were given by the Co-ordinate Bench, while remitting the matter to the said Court, vide order Annexure P-14:- ....