Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Manju Tanwar W/O Sh. Narendra Kumar ... vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2019
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12011/2019
Manju Tanwar W/o Sh. Narendra Kumar Tanwar, R/o S-56
Geejgarh Vihar Hawa Sarak Bais Godown Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Thorough Sh. Vivek Shrivastava Assistant
Director Directorate Of Enforcement Jaipur Regional Office 2Nd
Floor Jeevan Nidhi-Ii Jeevan Beema Nigam Bhwan Bhawani
Singh Road Jaipur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Goswami with Mr. Y.V. Nandwana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Sharma for UOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 17/09/2019
1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2. Criminal Complaint No.03/2016 was registered at Special Sessions Judge(Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002/Special Judge Communal Riots Cases) Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, for offences under Sections 3 read with 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been interrogated by the authorities. Her bank account and properties have been seized. Complaint has been filed before the court below and court has summoned the petitioner by arrest (Downloaded on 20/09/2019 at 09:17:40 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12011/2019] warrant at the first instance.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2011 (1) SCC 694. It is contended that husband of the petitioner has been granted bail by this court and in similarly situated case this court in Deepa Hada vs Union of India, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4619/2018 allowed the application and directed the petitioner to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks of this order and further directed the concerned court to accept the bail bonds as deemed proper by the concerned court.
5. Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the anticipatory bail application. Reliance has placed on P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No.1340/2019 and Satpal Singh vs State of Punjab, 2018(13) SCC 813. It is contended that after filing of the complaint and issuance of arrest warrant protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not given to the accused. It is also contended that since arrest warrants have been issued, the only course available to the accused is to seek regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. from the concerned court.
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. Admittedly, petitioner has been investigated by the department and complaint has been filed. Husband of the petitioner who is the main accused has been enlarged on bail by this court. Petitioner's bank account and property have been seized by the department, there are no chances that petitioner is absconded or not appeared before the court. As complaint has (Downloaded on 20/09/2019 at 09:17:40 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12011/2019] been filed, custodial interrogation is not required, hence, I deem it proper to allow the anticipatory bail application.
8. The Anticipatory bail application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks of this order. The concerned court shall accept the bail bounds as deemed proper by the concerned court.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J HEENA/55 (Downloaded on 20/09/2019 at 09:17:40 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)