TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 20
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lication under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking regular bail, which was dismissed by this Court on 21.01.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 6676 of 2024. ii. On 24.01.2025, the applicant challenged the above order before the Apex Court vide SLP (Cri.) No. 1300 of 2025. iii. On 29.01.2025, subsequent to the dismissal of the bail application of the applicant by this Court, this Court set aside the cognizance order dated 5.10.2024 vide its judgment dated 29.01.2025 in Cr.R. No. 1326/2024. iv. On 31.01.2025, in the SLP listed before the Apex Court, it was brought to notice of the Apex Court and accordingly while declining to interfere with order dated 21.01.2025, Apex court granted liberty to the applicant to again approach the trial court in view of the aforesaid subsequent development which reads thus : "We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move the trial particularly taking notice of the subsequent development." v. Thereafter, in terms of the liberty granted by the Apex Court and in view of the subsequent development ie. quashing and setting aside of the cognizance order dated 5.10.2024 vide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndition of surrender of passport. Another condition will be of appellant furnishing undertaking to the Special Court stating that, in case, cognizance of the complaint is taken, he will regularly and punctually attend the Special Court and shall cooperate with the special court for the early disposal of the case. In the event, it is found that, the appellant is no cooperating " 4. He submits that it is a settled law that when the detention of an accused itself is illegal, the arrest of the accused person, as per provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA itself stands vitiated. He has placed his reliance in the matters of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma, SLP (Crl.) No. 1136/2023 dated 21.01.2025 upholding the judgment of this Court in Subhash Sharma Vs. Directorate of Enforcement in MCRC No. 5288 of 2022 dated 21.09.2022 and in the matter of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana. SLP(Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024 dated 06.02.2025. The Court highlighted that holding someone in custody indefinitely while they await trial infringes on their fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, effectively transforming pre-trial detention into a form of punishment. 5. He s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 19 crores approximately, has been attached out of total 147 crores and the investigation is underway as such, release on bail at this juncture is not desirable for the strong likelihood that he might try to influence the witness of this case to hamper further investigation. To substantiate the submission, he referred to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary & others Vs. Union of India & others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 929] which has been duly upheld as under: "60. As a matter of fact, prior to amendment of 2015, the first proviso acted as an impediment for taking such urgent measure even by the authorized officer, who is no less than the rank of Deputy Director. We must hasten to add that the nuanced distinction must be kept in mind that to initiate "prosecution" for offence under Section 3 of the Act registration of scheduled offence is a prerequisite, but for initiating action of "provisional attachment" under Section 5 there need not be a pre-registered criminal case in connection with scheduled offence. This is because the machinery provisions cannot be construed in a manner which would eventually frustrate the proceedings under the 2002 Act.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent applicant is State of Chhattisgarh for granting prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and vide its order bearing No. dated 05.02.2025 has accorded the prosecution sanction in the present case for prosecution of the accused under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PMLA Act, 2002. In view of the liberty granted by this Court vide judgment dated 29.01.2025 and after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Enforcement Directorate Vs. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, 2024 SC OnLine SC 3181, application has been filed by the complainant before this Court to take the prosecution sanction order dated 05.02.2025 against the applicant on record and to resume the proceedings from the stage where it was before the judgment of the Hight Court. He further denied the contention of the applicant with regard to non-existence of cognizance order and that in the present case, cognizance order dated 22.03.2025 is already in the record. It has been held in catena of judgments that the validity of the prosecution sanction is to be decided by the trial court during trial. The same has been substantiated by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.K.Pardhan V. State of Sikkim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... even in the earlier day the phone call was made by the complainant / victim informing that thieves have come in the society and complaint was made that nothing is being done despite repeated such incidents and the alleged incident in the present case is in the midnight when again Police Officers along with additional police staff went to the village and the allegation against the accused are with respect to second incident, it is very debatable whether power under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply and the acts which are alleged to have been done by the accused / Police Officers can be said to be part of official duties. Therefore, at this stage, to quash the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is impermissible. Even assuming that the High Court was right that in absence of sanction under Section 197, the proceedings are vitiated, in that case, the High Court could have directed the authority to take sanction and then proceed, instead of completely quashing the entire criminal proceedings." 9. He has further placed his reliance in the matter of State Rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of Polic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d considered the rival contentions and also perused the record. 13. From the perusal of the abovementioned facts, it is clear that prima facie the Enforcement Directorate has collected evidence of offence of money laundering against the present applicant though its correctness is required to be adjudicated during trial. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in custody since 30.04.2024 i.e. about one year, therefore, he should be released on bail on account of long incarceration period. Earlier bail application filed by the applicant has been dismissed by this court on 21.01.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 6676/2024 and the applicant had preferred SLP against the said order before the Apex Court vide SLP (Crl.) No. 1300/2025. On 31.01.2025, when the matter was listed before the Apex Court a subsequent development was brought to the notice and the Apex Court declined to interfere with the order of the High Court dated 21.01.2025 and has granted liberty to the applicant to again approach the trial court in view of the subsequent development. 14. Since the offence pertains to money laundering, apart from the usual considerations, it would have to be seen wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....custody..... In the present case, it is pertinent to mention here that in Cr.R. No. 1326 of 2024 vide order dated 29.01.2025, this Court has set aside the order of taking cognizance therefore, detention from the date of earlier cognizance ie. on 5.10.2024 to the date of taking re-cognizance by the Special Court vide order dated 22.03.2025 is not as per provisions contained under Section 309(2) Cr.P.C. The applicant is in custody since 30.04.2024 i.e. about one year and the maximum punishment prescribed is 7 years as of today and the position is that though the complaint has been filed on 21.08.2023, the trial has not yet commenced and even hearing on charges has not taken place. In the matter of Arun Pati Tripathi Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) in liquor scam case in the State of Chhattisgarh, (Arun Pati Tripathi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 1264 of 2025, (SLP (Crl.) No. 14646 of 2024), Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2025 (SLP (Crl.) No. 17645 of 2024) and Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2025 (SLP (Crl.) NO. 298 of 2025), it has been observed as under: "The appellant is being prosecuted for the various offences punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-....