Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ram Pratap Verma @ Ram Pratap Verma vs The State Through Direcorate Of ... on 1 February, 2023
Bench: Surya Kant, J.K. Maheshwari
1
ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8199/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12072022
in BA No. 4043/2022 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at
Ranchi)
RAM PRATAP VERMA @ RAM PRATAP VERMA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE THROUGH DIRECORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Respondent(s)
Date : 01022023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
For Petitioner(s)
Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, AOR
Mr. Abhik Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sanveer Mehlwal, Adv.
Ms. Pinky Behera, Adv.
Mr. Rinku Mathur, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv.
Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv.
Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv.
Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, Adv.
Ms. Ashima Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in connection with ECIR Signature Not Verified No.02/2020, arising out of ECIR No. RNSZO/02/2017 (CNR Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND No.JHRNO10025482000) for the commission of the alleged offence Date: 2023.02.01 15:54:17 IST Reason:
under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money 2 Laundering Act, 2002, pending in the Court of the Additional Judicial CommissionerXVIIIcumSpecial Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, Bihar.
2. It is not in dispute that during the course of investigation, the prosecution did not feel necessity to put the petitioner to custodial interrogation and/or arrest him for being taken to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the first Report was filed on 08052020 before the Additional Judicial CommissionerXVIIIcumSpecial Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, Bihar, though further investigation is reported to be still pending. Thereafter, the petitioner surrendered on 03112021 and is in custody since then.
3. It is also not in dispute that his coaccused (Shyam Kishore Gupta) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that no meaningful purpose will be served by retaining the petitioner in judicial custody and the conclusion of trial is likely to take reasonable time, but without expressing any views on the merits of this case, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge.
6. The Special Leave Petition is disposed in above terms.
(VISHAL ANAND) (PREETHI T.C.) ASTT. REGISTRARcumPS COURT MASTER (NSH)