Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kiran Prakash Kulkarni vs The Enforcement Directorate on 11 April, 2019
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, M.R. Shah
OUT TODAY
ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1698/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-12-
2018 in CRLBA No. 2267/2018 passed by the High Court Of
Judicature At Bombay)
KIRAN PRAKASH KULKARNI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR. Respondent(s)
)
Date : 11-04-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Fali S. Nariman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Subhash Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR
Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Basutkar, Adv.
Ms. Priya Agarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv.
Binu Tamta, Adv.
Nithin P., Adv.
Prakhas Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Singh, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
Mr. Amol N. Suryawanshi, Adv.
Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2019.04.11
O R D E R
17:39:04 IST Reason:
A First Information Report was registered against the 1 petitioner for offences under Sections 409, 420, 477A and 120B read with 34 IPC on 15.12.2015. Thereafter, Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA Act’) was registered against the petitioner on 12.1.2016 in which the charge sheet was filed on 16.4.2016. The petitioner was granted bail in the predicate offences on 10.5.2016 after being in jail for a period of five months. The petitioner was arrested again on 18.6.2018 for the offences under the PMLA Act. The application for bail filed by the petitioner was rejected by the High Court on 22.12.2018.
On a careful scrutiny of the judgment of the High Court, we find that the law laid down by this Court on the constitutional validity of Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act in “Nikesh Tarachand Shah versus Union of India” reported in 2018 (11) SCC 1, has not been taken into account. After a detailed discussion on the facts, the High Court opined that prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and, so, he was not entitled for bail. We have considered the material available on record and the submissions made by Mr. Fali S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. The petitioner was in jail for five months in the predicate offences. A charge sheet has been filed in the case registered under the PMLA Act, though, the learned Additional Solicitor General says that further investigation is in progress.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for bail. The petitioner 2 shall be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. In addition, the bail granted is subject to these conditions :-
(a) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.
(b) He shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If he wants to remain absent, then he shall take prior permission of the Court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, he shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also to the Director, Enforcement Directorate and request that he may be permitted to be present through the counsel.
(c) He shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, he is not a holder of the same, he shall swear to an affidavit.
If he has already surrendered, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit.
(d) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigating agency and appear before the agency as and when summoned.
(e) We reserve liberty to the Enforcement Directorate to make an appropriate application for 3 modification/recalling the order passed by us, if for any reason, the petitioner violates any of the conditions mentioned above.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(GEETA AHUJA) (KAILASH CHANDER)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
4