Allahabad High Court
Shri Brij Nath Ram Yadav vs Directorate Of Enforcement Government ... on 18 January, 2022
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 67 of 2022 Applicant :- Shri Brij Nath Ram Yadav Opposite Party :- Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India Thru A.D. E.D. Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Amarjeet Singh Rakhra,Ajay Shukla,Bashisth Muni Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
The Court convened through video conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Shiv P. Shukla, learned Special counsel for Directorate of Enforcement, and perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Complaint Case No.95 of 2019, under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA Act, Police Station Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow, District Lucknow with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that initially the F.I.R. as R.C. No. 2202012E0001 dated 02.02.2012 was registered by C.B.I. against several persons under Sections 120B r/w 409/420/468/471 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, in the aforesaid case, applicant was taken into custody and charge sheet was filed by the C.B.I., and thereafter, applicant was enlarged on bail by this Court on 12.02.2016. He further submitted that on the basis of aforesaid F.I.R., ECIR No. ECIR/06/PMLA/LKZO/2012 dated 14.04.2012 was also registered by the Enforcement Directorate and started inquiry. He further submitted that the applicant co-operated in the inquiry and appeared whenever he was called by the officers of the E.D. His statement was also recorded and he also provided necessary documents. Thereafter, Complaint Case No.95 of 2019 was filed by Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate on 24.05.2019 and cognizance was taken by the Special court and summons were issued against all the accused persons. He further submitted that the applicant was not aware about the summon and it was never served on him, and on 17.09.2021, bailable warrant was also issued. Thereafter, applicant moved an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the court below which was rejected without considering the statement that the applicant co-operated during the course of inquiry and he was never taken into custody as Section 19 of PMLA Act clearly empowers the authorities.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant never misused the liberty given by the officers of E.D. He further submitted that the applicant is ready to co-operate in the proceeding pending before the court below. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for interim protection.
Learned Assistant Solicitor General assisted by learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that the applicant is not co-operating in the trial of the present case, but they do not dispute this fact that one ECIR was registered in the year of 2012 and during the course of inquiry, applicant co-operated, his statement was recorded and he also provided all the necessary documents to the officers of E.D. Considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Assistant Solicitor General and learned A.G.A., and going through the documents annexed with the present bail application, it is undisputed that one ECIR was registered in the year of 2012 on the F.I.R. filed by the C.B.I., applicant was confined in the aforesaid F.I.R. by the C.B.I. and he was released on bail on 12.02.2016 and thereafter, he co-operated in the inquiry conducted by the officers of E.D. in ECIR No. ECIR/06/PMLA/LKZO/2012, thereafter, complaint in question was filed on 24.05.2019 and later on, summons were issued on 17.07.2019 on the accused persons including the applicant, but it was never served on the applicant, on 17.09.2021, bailable warrant was issued against the applicant which was served and thereafter, application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was moved before the court below which was rejected, as the applicant co-operated in the inquiry conducted by the E.D., therefore, this Court is of the view that matter requires consideration.
In case, the applicant - Shri Brij Nath Ram Yadav - is taken into custody by the Investigating Officer/arresting officer then he shall be released forthwith on interim bail after taking personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of the same amount subject to the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(2) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(3) The applicant shall not leave the District concerned without the previous permission of the court.
List this case on 16.02.2022. On the next date, anticipatory bail application shall be decided finally.
In the meantime, learned counsel for the opposite party may file counter affidavit.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 18.1.2022 S. Shivhare