Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ankit Sharma S/O Mahesh Chand Sharma vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 19 July, 2022
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 20436/2021
Ankit Sharma S/o Mahesh Chand Sharma, R/o Rag Hospital
Shiprapath Mansarovar Jaipur -302020
----Petitioner
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement, Through Its Assistant Director
Directorate Of Enforcement (The Prevention Of Money
Laundering Act, 2002) Govt. Of India Ministry Of Finance
Department Of Revenue Jaipur Zonal Office, 2Nd Floor Jeevan
Nidhi-Ii Lic Building Bhawani Singh Marg Jaipur Raj. 302005
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 20437/2021
Smt. Meena W/o Mahesh Sharma, R/o R.a.g. Hospital
Mansarovar Jaipur 302020
----Petitioner
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement, Through Its Assistant Director
Directorate Of Enforcement (The Prevention Of Money
Laundering Act, 2002) Govt. Of India Ministry Of Finance
Department Of Revenue Jaipur Zonal Office, 2Nd Floor Jeevan
Nidhi-Ii Lic Building Bhawani Singh Marg Jaipur Raj. 302005
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Deepak Rastogi, ASG with
Mr. Namandeep Singh on behalf of
Mr. Anand Sharma, Sr.CGPC,
Mr. Dinesh Yadav,
Mr. Rajat Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
19/07/2022
(Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 10:16:16 PM)
(2 of 6) [CRLMB-20436/2021]
1. The anticipatory bail applications have been filed under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Complaint
No.ECIR/JPZO/02/2014 dated 21.10.2014 for the offence(s) under
Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act and
against the order dated 08.12.2021 passed by Special Judge, CBI
Cases No.3 Jaipur Metropolitan-I in bail application No.35/2021
whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the bail application
filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have
been falsely implicated in this case. Name of the petitioners are
not mentioned in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners also
submits that main accused Mohit Sharma was enlarged on bail by
co-ordinate bench and co-accused Mahesh Sharma was enlarged
on bail by Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners
also submits that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners. Trial Court after taking cognizance against the petitioners, wrongly summoned the petitioners by way of arrest warrants. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required. So, petitioners be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments of (1)Siddharth Vs. State of uttar Pradesh & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No.839 of 2020 (2)Amanpreet Singh Vs. CBI, MANU/SC/0599/2021 (3)Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI; SLP Crl. No.5191 of 2021 (Order dated 28.07.2021), (4)Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI; SLP Crl. No.5191 of 2021 (Order dated 07.10.2021), (5)Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI; SLP Crl. No.5191 of 2021 (Order dated 16.12.2021), (6)Court on its own motion Vs. CBI; Crl. Misc. (M) (Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 10:16:16 PM) (3 of 6) [CRLMB-20436/2021] 3875/2003, (7)Mohit Sharma Vs. Directorate of Enforcement; SB Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.14691/2020, (8)Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs. Sharad Kumar; SLP (Crl.) No.2795/2021, (9)Manju Tanvar Vs. Union of India; SB Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12011/2019, (10)Deepa Heda Vs. Union of India; SB Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.4619/2018, (11)Uma Charan Sharma & Ors Vs. Union of India; SB Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.14530/2019.
4. Learned Additional Solicitor General has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the bail applications are not maintainable. Petitioners had challenged the cognizance order which is pending. Learned Additional Solicitor General also submits that petitioners also filed the petition under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. for conversion of arrest warrant into bailable warrant but said application was dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is also pending. Learned Additional Solicitor General also submits that petitioners are involved in the commission of serious economic offence of money laundering. Learned Additional Solicitor General also submits that Apex Court in various pronouncements stated that economic offender runs parallel economic and it effect the economy of the nation. So, anticipatory bail should not be granted to the offenders. Learned Additional Solicitor General also submits that petitioners have active role with the co-accused. So, anticipatory bail be dismissed.
5. Learned Additional Solicitor General has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Rajkumar Daitapati Vs. Director (Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 10:16:16 PM) (4 of 6) [CRLMB-20436/2021] Enforcement in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16124/2021 decided on 11.11.2021; (2) P. Chidambaram Vs. E.D. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24; (3) Tamanna Begum Vs. E.D. in S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4148/2020 decided on 01.06.2020; (4) Ambalal Punamchand Rashamwala Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 1991 SCC online Bom 676; (5) Jai Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (1977) 1 SCC 1; (6) Union of India Vs. Cipla Ltd. reported in (2017) 5 SCC 262; (7) Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (200) 1 SCC 722; (8) Sanatan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. In SLP (Crl.) No.7358/2021; (9) Manubhai Najbhai Dhandhal Vs. Commissioner of Police in Special Civil Application No.9651/2009 decided on 14.05.2010 ; (10) Dr. Ashok Singhvi Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6273/2020 decided on 06.07.2020; (11) Court on its own motion Vs. State reported in 2018 SCC Online Del. 12306; (12) Virupakshappa Gouda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406; (13) Sudhir Kumar Kad Vs. CBI in M.G.C. No.9763/2020 decided on 19.03.2020; (14) Sudhir Kumar Kad Vs. CBI in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Diary No.10979/2020 decided on 24.04.2020; (15) Girdhar Gopal Bajoria Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.731/2021 decided on 23.09.2021; (16) Pooran Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.474/2010 decided on 25.05.2010; (17) Shyam Sunder Singhvi Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition (Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 10:16:16 PM) (5 of 6) [CRLMB-20436/2021] No.273/2019 decided on 24.01.2020; (18) Shyam Sundar Singhvi Vs. Union of India in SLP (Crl.) No.792/2020; (19) State of Gujarat Vs. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364; (20) Y.S. Jaganmohan Ready Vs. CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439; (21) Pramod Kumar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2008) 9 SCC 685; (22) Gautam Kundu Vs. E.D. reported in (2015) 16 SCC 1; (23) Anoop Bartaria Vs. E.D. in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.704/2018; (24) Rohit Tandon Vs. Union of Indai & Ors. reported in (2018) 11 SCC 46; (25) Ajay Kumar Vs. E.D. in Criminal Application (BA) No.1149/2021; (26) N. Umashankar @ N.M. Umashankar & Ors. Vs. Assistant Director, E.D. in Criminal O.P. Nos.3381, 3383 and 3385/2021; (27) N. Umashankar @ N.M. Umashankar & Ors. Vs. Assistant Director, E.D. in SLP (Crl.) NO.620- 622/2022; (28) Upendra Rai Vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2019 SCC Online Del 9086; (29) ED vs. Upendra Rai in SLP (Crl.) Diary No.5150/2020; (30) Mohammad Arif Vs. ED reported in 2020 SCC Online Ori 544; (31) Mohammad Arif Vs. ED in SLP (Crl.) No.4878/2020; (32) Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India reported in (2018) 11 SCC 1; (33) Vidyut Kumar Sarkar @ Ashok Das Vs. State of Bihar in Criminal Misc. No.73325/2019; (34) Muzaffar Ali Bohra Vs. E.D. in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail no.7598/2021; (35) Mahesh Chand Sharma VS. Sharad Kumar in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail 5326/2021 decided on 15.03.2021; (36) Ankit Sharma Vs. ED in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15523/2021; (Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 10:16:16 PM)
(6 of 6) [CRLMB-20436/2021]
(37) Meena Devi Vs. ED in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.15524/2021 and (38) Jainarayan Sharma Vs. Assistant Director, ED in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1528/2022.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Solicitor General and perused the material available on record.
7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners are involved in serious economic offence, the Principle of Law enunciated by 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 them on anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications are dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Seema/90-91 (Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 10:16:16 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)