TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1651
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....021 2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in COMA 13 of 2017 dated 01.07.2017 arising out of ECIR/02/JLZO/2013 dated 22.01.2016 registered under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'). 3. Custody certificate dated 07.03.2022 has been filed in Court by way of affidavit of Additional Superintendent, Central Prison, Patiala, the same is taken on record. 4. The petitioner earlier surrendered on 19.07.2021 in pursuance to the undertaking given before this Court on 16.07.2021 while withdrawing the earlier petition bearing CRM-M-3510 of 2021. 5. The case set up by the petitioner in the present petition is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and when he was called upon. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the petitioner is not an accused in any of the aforesaid FIRs but it was his brother Chunni Lal Gaba, who was an accused in FIR No. 92 of 2014, wherein he stands acquitted, vide judgment dated 13.02.2019. However, the Enforcement Directorate on 22.01.2016, in a 3rd Supplementary Complaint, arraigned him, his son Khushant Gaba and his wife Sudesh Rani as accused Nos. 9, 10 and 12, respectively. 7. The facts coming on record show that the petitioner moved an application for pre-arrest bail before the learned Special Judge, Patiala. In the said application, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2016 against which the petitioner approached this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7.12.2021 for causing appearance on 08.01.2021. The petitioner did not appear and consequently non-bailable warrants of his arrest were issued on 08.01.2021, for 19.01.2021 and 19.02.2021, which could not be executed despite best efforts as he was not traceable and accordingly was declared a Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 25.05.2021. 9. It has been also brought to the notice of this Court that due to non-appearance of the petitioner, charges could not be framed till date and instead of surrendering before the Court, the petitioner moved petitions before the High Court challenging the orders of issuance of non-bailable warrants. 10. Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Sr. Standing Counsel, Govt. of India, has contended that the petitioner was ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....solutely contrary to the record, as the Provisional Attachment Order No. 04/2015 dated 17.12.2015 identifying the properties to be attached, has such a reference specifically therein. Even the notices to vacate the properties under sub-Section 4 of Section 8 of the Act were issued. These notices bear the signature of the petitioner as a token of receipt of the notice to vacate. This shows the conduct of the petitioner, who alleged to have sold those properties despite receiving notices to vacate. Not only this, even an appeal was preferred by him against the Attachment Orders before the Appellate Authority mentioning the properties at Sr.No.15 and 16 now alleged to have been sold by him. From these factual aspects and record, no iota o....