AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 410
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort was lodged in furtherance of an order dated 16.07.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 12396 (M/B) of 2014 against one Yadav Singh, the then Chief Engineer, Noida/Greater Noida, Yamuna Expressway Authorities and some unknown persons, for alleged corrupt practices adopted in executing some engineering works between 14.12.2011 and 23.12.2011. 4. On 02.05.2017, the Enforcement Directorate filed a Complaint No.13 of 2017, ECIR/04/PMLA/LZO/2015 in which the applicant was also named as an accused person. The applicant happens to be wife of the co-accused Yadav Singh. It is stated in the complaint that the statement of co-accused Pradeep Garg was recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, wherein, he stated that he had given Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to Countrywide Electronics Pvt. Ltd for investment in shares from his group Company Gannayak Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Countrywide Company was controlled by co-accused Mohan Lal Rathi. Mohan Lal Rathi stated that the Pradeep Garg had provided Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to his Countrywide Holdings Pvt. Ltd for purchase of equity share. The said amount was invested in the listed equity shares but there was no written agreement about the alleg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an interim order dated 10.01.2019 providing that no coercive action will be taken till the next date of hearing. On 07.12.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and provided that if the applicant surrenders within a week and applies for regular bail, her bail plea may be considered by the Trial Court expeditiously and on priority. It was further provided that the interim protection granted to the applicant shall continue for a period of one week or till her bail plea is considered by the Trial Court, whichever be the earlier. The period of one week granted in the aforesaid order dated 07.12.2022, was extended for four weeks by means of an order dated 16.12.2022. 11. In furtherance of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant filed a bail application, which was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow by means of an order dated 16.01.2023 on the sole ground that the applicant had not surrendered and she was not in custody, and the time granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court had expired on 13.01.2023. 12. The applicant challenged the aforesaid order dated 16.01.2023 by filing an Applicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in creating evidences of her sickness, as and when required. There is nothing on record to show that earlier, in the span of seven years, barring some period, accused/applicant got herself treated in the Hospital." 14. Sri S.C. Mishra Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is only the applicant who is still languishing in jail in the present case and besides the applicant, all other co-accused person have already been enlarged on bail. Co-accused Yadav Singh has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1826 of 2017. Another co-accused Pankaj Jain has been granted bail by means of an order dated 16.04.2019 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Bail No. 2504 of 2019. Yet another co-accused Vinod Kumar Goel has been granted bail by means of an order dated 28.02.2019 passed by this Court in Bail No. 7566 of 2018. 15. One of the co-accused persons Pradeep Garg has been granted bail by means of an order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the learned Session Judge/Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow. 16. Sri Mishra has further submitted that the applicant is a woman and she....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country." 19. The learned Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751, wherein it was held that: - "13.... It is well settled that socio-economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. Usually socio-economic offence has deeprooted conspiracies affecting the moral fibre of the society and causing irreparable harm, needs to be considered seriously." 20. I have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 21. Section 45 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, provides that the offences under the Act will be cognizable and nonbailable. The relevant provision of Section 45 (a) of the Act reads thus: - "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence (under this Act) shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to M/s Kusum Garments by way of loan and it is the case of the Enforcement Directorate, that the amount has been transferred by layering so that it could not be detected and in fact it was a part of the proceeds of crime committed by the co-accused Yadav Singh. 25. The applicant is a woman and one of her kidneys has been removed and she is surviving with one kidney and she is suffering from anxiety, depression and panic attacks. The Proviso appended to Section 45 (1) of PMLA provides that a woman or a sick or infirm person may be released on bail. The amount deposited in the account of M/s Kusum Garments is Rs.50,00,000/- and the Proviso also provides that a person who is accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees, may be granted bail. 26. The principal co-accused Yadav Singh has already been granted bail. Sri Mohan Lal Rathi, who had deposited the amount in the account of Kusum Garments, and who has stated in his statement recorded by the Enforcement Directorate, that he had given this amount to Kusum Garments as loan, has not been made accused in the present case. Sri Mohan Lal Rathi had received the amount from co-accused Pradeep Garg and Pradeep Garg ha....