TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1820
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e along with other accused persons is involved in a conspiracy to issue recommendations/appointment letters to unsuccessful candidates for filling up vacancies in Group-C and D posts in various schools of the State. It is also alleged that he has issued such appointment letters on illegal recommendations received from one Shanti Prasad Sinha and instructed his sub-ordinate Rajesh Layek to issue the appointment letters. He has been actively involved in generation and acquisition of proceeds of crime and projecting them as untainted property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in course of investigation in connection with ECIR No. KLZO-II/17/2022 dated 31st May, 2022, the petitioner was interrogated and his statement rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Rajesh Layek, appointed on a contractual basis, was responsible for printing the appointment letters. The petitioner has prayed for his release in terms of Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by quashing the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta on 7th March, 2025 in M.L. case no. 9 of 2024 in so far as he is concerned. Vehemently opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the E.D. has submitted that the petitioner was actively involved in the alleged offence and has fraudulently executed issuance of fake appointment letters in favour of unsuccessful candidates in respect of Group-C and D posts in various schools under the Government of West Bengal. Since the petitioner was already in custody....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen any person for whose appearance or arrest the officer presiding in any Court is empowered to issue a summons or warrant, is present is such Court, such officer may require such person to execute a bond or bail bond for his appearance in such Court, or any other Court to which the case may be transferred for trial." Following the said provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal (supra) has observed as follows:- (a) If the accused was not arrested by the E.D. till filing of the complaint, while taking cognizance on a complaint under Section 44 (1) (b), as a normal rule, the Court should issue a summons to the accused and not a warrant. (b) If the accused appears before the Special Court pursuant to the summons,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It has been pointed out on behalf of the E.D. that once a bail application is filed as in the present case, rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA are attracted. It is a fact that the petitioner filed an application for bail before the learned Special Judge. But the learned Special Court should not have lost sight of the provision under Section 91 of the BNSS as well as the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal (supra). The learned Court has misdirected itself in applying the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA in rejecting the bail prayer when no such application was required to be filed at all. It is trite law that the E.D. cannot invoke section 19 of the Act when the accused appears before the Special Court in response ....