Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Krishna Mohan Tripathi vs State Through Enforcement Directorate on 25 May, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Aniruddha Bose
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6510 of 2020)
Krishna Mohan Tripathi …….Appellant(s)
Versus
State Through Enforcement Directorate ……Respondent(s)
O R D ER
Leave granted.
By way of this appeal, the appellant who is the accused in Complaint No. 8 of
2017 relating to offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (‘the PMLA Act’) and who is in custody since 27.11.2019,
has questioned the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Misc. Case No. 12568 of 2019,
whereby the High Court rejected his prayer for bail while providing for
expeditious proceedings in the trial and while giving him liberty to move for bail
afresh, if the trial was not concluded within six months from the date of
production of a certified copy of its order.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant background aspects of the matter
are that the appellant, who was then working as Chief Regional Manager, IRCTC,
Signature Not Verified
at Regional Office, Lucknow, was tried and convicted for the offences under
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2021.05.25
23:05:09 IST
Reason:
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(‘the P.C. Act’) in FIR No. RC0062009A0033 on the allegations that he was
2
caught red-handed with bribe money of INR 70,000/- on 30.10.2009. The
appellant was awarded sentence for maximum period of five years with
stipulations of fine by the judgment dated 11.08.2014 passed by the Special
Judge, Anti-Corruption CBI (West), Lucknow. The appeal filed by the appellant
against such conviction and sentence, being Criminal Appeal No. 1109 of 2014, is
pending in the High Court; and the execution of sentence awarded to him has
been suspended by the order dated 25.09.2014.
In relation to the aforesaid case, CBI conducted search in the residential and
office premises of the appellant; and FIR No. RC0062010A0010 under Section
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act was lodged on 24.02.2010, with
the allegation that the appellant, by misusing his official position, acquired
disproportionate assets. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in the said case
on 13.11.2010 with the assertion that the appellant was found in the possession of
moveable and immoveable assets the tune of INR 2,13,81,313/- though his
income, in the check period, was INR 1,51,24,983/-.
With reference to the aforesaid investigation of the predicate offences in the
aforesaid two FIRs, investigation under the provisions of the PMLA Act was
initiated on 23.03.2010 and thereafter, Complaint Case No. 8 of 2017 has been
lodged under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act.
Put in a nutshell, it is alleged, as regards the offences under PMLA Act, that
after investigation, evidence in relation to money laundering was also found
against the appellant and proceeds of crime were to the tune of INR
3
1,38,63,445/-.
The High Court took note of the relevant background aspects and the nature
of accusations in the impugned order dated 25.11.2020. The High Court did not
feel inclined to grant the concession of bail at the given stage but found it just and
proper to direct expeditious proceedings in the trial while giving liberty to the
appellant to apply for bail afresh at a later stage. The High Court observed and
directed as under: -
“In view of above, no case for bail is made out at this stage.
Accordingly, bail application is rejected.
However, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of Compliant
Case No. 8 of 2017, under Section 3/4 of PML Act expeditiously, on
day to day basis and no adjournment would be given without
recording reasons. Additional Director, Enforcement Directorate of
concerned region is directed to ensure the presence of witnesses
before the Trial Court for necessary compliance.
In case, the trial is not concluded within six months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order, it will be open to the
applicant to approach either the court below or this Court for bail
afresh.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the authorities
concerned for necessary compliance, forthwith.”
It is submitted on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel Ms. Kamini
Jaiswal that the trial is at the very initial stage inasmuch as only the examination-
in-chief of one prosecution witness has taken place and 13 witnesses are to be
examined in the present case as also in the connected case. It is strenuously
argued that the continued detention of the appellant is not going to serve the
cause of justice when the trial is likely to consume further time and, in the given
circumstances, the appellant deserves the concession of bail. It is also submitted
4
that the appellant is on bail in other cases and there is no allegation of any misuse
of liberty by the appellant.
Learned ASG, Shri S.V. Raju, with his firmness as also fairness, has made the
submissions on behalf of the respondent, with reference to the nature of
accusations against the appellant and the fact that the appellant earlier avoided to
appear and for that matter, non-bailable warrants had to be issued. However, there
is no dispute about the present status of the trial that only the examination-in-
chief of the first prosecution witness has been recorded.
Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having
examined the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that
continuing with the detention of the appellant to face the trial in the present case
would not serve the cause of justice. Even if the appellant had earlier not
appeared, the fact of the matter remains that he had faced trial in the P.C. Act
matter and his appeal remains pending.
The High Court, in the impugned order dated 25.11.2020, declined the bail at
the given stage but directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial on day-to-day
basis and also gave liberty to the appellant to apply for bail afresh, if trial did not
conclude within six months from the date of production of copy of its order. The
fact remains that this appeal is being considered today by this Court only after six
months from the date of order of the High Court but, what to say of conclusion,
the trial is practically at the very initial stage with even the statement of the first
prosecution witness remaining incomplete. Looking to the nature of case and the
5
witnesses to be examined, the trial and is bound to take time. On the other hand,
the appellant is said to be in custody since 27.11.2019.
In the given scenario and status of the case, driving the parties to another
round of bail plea in the Trial Court or in the High Court does not appear serving
the cause of justice and we see no reason to deny the personal liberty to the
appellant now at this stage, particularly when his properties otherwise remain
attached and it is also pointed out that his passport is already deposited with the
CBI.
In view of above, this appeal is allowed in the manner that while setting aside
the impugned order dated 25.11.2020, the appellant is ordered to be released on
bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and necessary by the Trial Court,
which shall include the conditions that the appellant will not attempt to alienate
any of his properties without permission of the Trial Court and will render all co-
operation in expeditious proceedings of the trial.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
…………….………..,J.
(Dinesh Maheshwari)
……………………..,J.
(Aniruddha Bose)
New Delhi,
May 25, 2021.
6
ITEM NO.23 Court 10 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II
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). 6510/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-11-2020
in BNO. No. 12568/2019 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
KRISHNA MOHAN TRIPATHI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.131708/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No. 131708/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 6904/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 25-05-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kamini Jaiswal, AOR Ms. Rani Mishra,Adv.
Mr. Rohit Tripathi,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. S.V Raju,ASG Mr. Zoheb Hossain,Adv.
Ms. Sairica Raju,Adv.
Mr. A. Venkatesh,Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR For U.P. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay Adv.
Mr. Amol Chitravanshi Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed.
(DEEPAK SINGH) (BEENA JOLLY) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) [Signed order is placed on the file] 7