Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajkumar Daitapati S/O Shri Jagannath ... vs Director Enforcement on 11 November, 2021
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16124/2021
Rajkumar Daitapati S/o Shri Jagannath Kumar, R/o Mati Mandap,
Sahi, Puri (Orissa)
----Petitioner
Versus
Director Enforcement, Through Shri Sitaram Meena, Assistant
Director, Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur Zonal Office, Second
Floor, Jeewan Nidhi, Jeewan Insurance Nigam Bhawan, Bhawani
Singh Road, Jaipur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Aniket Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. D. Rastogi, ASG through VC Mr. Anand Sharma, Adv. through VC Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj, Adv. through VC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order Judgment Reserved on : 08/11/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 11/11/2021 The present bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with complaint No.04/2018 titled as Shri Sitaram Meena, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur Vs. Rajkumar Daitapati for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Sessions Case No.37/2021 (ECIR No.JPZO/1/2015) (Rajkumar Daitapati Vs. Enforcement Directorate)) and against the order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge (the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) Special Judge (CBI) No.3, Jaipur Metorpolitan-I in Misc. Case (Downloaded on 15/11/2021 at 09:36:44 PM) (2 of 5) [CRLMB-16124/2021] No.31/2021 whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. Petitioner was not a party to any agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that after investigation, police submitted final negative report but trial court had taken cognizance against the petitioner and other persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Mr. Kamal Bhasin is known to the petitioner. Complainant had made a request to the petitioner for collection of money through proper channel but due to legal constrained, petitioner could not send the huge amount in foreign currency to the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had informed the complainant for collection of money but complainant did not turn and he had filed a complaint before Enforcement Directorate. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had deposited the same amount in Allahabad Bank which was recovered by the E.D. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had joined the investigation and narrated the whole story.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that trial court had issued warrant of arrest without assigning any cogent reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner filed an application under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C. for conversion of non-bailable warrant into bailable warrant but the said application was rejected by the trial court on 17.09.2021. (Downloaded on 15/11/2021 at 09:36:44 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLMB-16124/2021] Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. So, the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.89/2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4657/2020) decided on 29.01.2021 and Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.838/2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5442/2021) decided on 16.08.2021.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner is totally misconceived and not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the petitioner had not filed the revision of the rejection order dated 17.09.2021. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that petitioner is involved in the commission of a serious economic offence of money laundering. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that petitioner was in association of Kamal Bhasin and misused the power of attorney issued to him and he got illegal benefit by transferring property in the name of his company and deposited Rs.80 lacs in his account and made FDR in the name of his family members. So, looking to the gravity of offence, the anticipatory bail be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2018) 13 SCC 813; (2) Salauddin Abdul Samad Shakh Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1996) 1 SCC (Downloaded on 15/11/2021 at 09:36:44 PM) (4 of 5) [CRLMB-16124/2021] 667; (3) P. Chidambaram Vs. E.D. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24; (4) Tamanna Begum Vs. E.D. in S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4148/2020 decided on 01.06.2020; (5) Ambalal Punamchand Rashamwala Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 1991 SCC online Bom 676; (6) Himanshu @ Hemant Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2015 (2) Mh.L.J.; (7) Girdhar Gopal Bajoria Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.731/2021 decided on 23.09.2021; (8) Pooran Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.474/2010 decided on 25.05.2010; (9) Shyam Sunder Singhvi Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.273/2019 decided on 24.01.2020; (10) Shyam Sundar Singhvi Vs. Union of India in SLP (Crl.) No.792/2020; (11) Manubha Nanubha Kathi Vs. Commissioner of Police in Special Civil Application No.9651/2009 decided on 14.05.2010; (12) Sanatan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. In SLP (Crl.) No.7358/2021; (13) Dr. Ashok Singhvi Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6273/2020 decided on 06.07.2020; (14) Court on its own motion Vs. State reported in 2018 SCC online Del. 12306; (15) Sh. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565; (16) Sushila Agarwal Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1; (17) Sudhir Kumar Kad Vs. CBI in M.G.C. No.9763/2020 decided on 19.03.2020; (18) Sudhir Kumar Kad Vs. CBI in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Diary No.10979/2020 decided on 24.04.2020; (19) Virupakshappa Gouda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Downloaded on 15/11/2021 at 09:36:44 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLMB-16124/2021] reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406; (20) Y.S. Jaganmohan Ready Vs. CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439; (21) State of Gujarat Vs. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364; (22) Madan Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2018) 12 SCC 30; (23) State of Jharkhand Vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav reported in (2017) 8 SCC 1; (24) Monica Bedi Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 284 and (25) Smt. Janata Jha Vs. & Anr. Vs. Assistant Director of Enforcement, Govt. of India & Anr. in CRMC No.114/2021 decided on 16.12.2013.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case; specially, to the fact that the petitioner had not challenged the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the trial court. Petitioner is involved in serious economic offence, the principle of law enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Chidambaram's case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Hence, the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin/158 (Downloaded on 15/11/2021 at 09:36:44 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)