Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (1.41 seconds)
Documents citing Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Ramendu Chattopadhyay on 19 November, 2019

Mohammad Mansoor Khan vs The Directorate Of Enforcement on 19 October, 2020

7. Now if the points of arguments of the learned counsel are considered, what can be stated is that the petitioner is urging for his release on bail in the background of his health conditions. Of course in the two authorities cited by Sri Madhukar Deshpande in the cases of CBI vs Ramendu Chattopadhyay and Zafar Iqbal (supra) it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir that in cases where there are allegations of laundering huge amounts of money, bail should not be granted. Even in the other cases the same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the light of the observations made in these decisions, it is possible to say that even in the case on hand also, there are prima facie materials against the petitioner and in this background there is no scope for granting bail. But the learned counsel for the petitioner did not argue for granting bail on the point that there are no prima facie materials, he emphasized two points namely health condition of the petitioner and his availability for the purpose of trial.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rajiv Sharma vs Prabhakar Rajaram on 1 September, 2021

In support of his aforesaid submissions, he placed reliance upon following judgments, titled as Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramendu Chattopadhyay, 2020 (14) SCC 396, State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr, 1987 (2) SCC 364, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:59:33 :::CIS 6 2019 (9) SCC 24, Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) v. State of Gujarat, 2008 (5) SCC .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Mr K Ramakrishna vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 24 June, 2022

As observed in paragraph No.7 that the petitioner has played a key role in the promotion of scam. When such allegations are made, it is clear that it is a case of cheating a large number of innocent depositors and misappropriating their hard-earned money. In the case on hand also, the very same accusations have been made. The judgment of Apex Court in Ramendu Chattopadhyay's case (supra), is applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to enlarge him on bail.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Shri Anand Balakrishna Appugol vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 24 June, 2022

When such being the material on record, and investigation also discloses the siphoning off the huge amount of Rs.250 crore and Trial Court also while considering the bail petition taken note of Section 24 of PML Act and apart from that taken note of the gravity of the offences and accusation made against this petitioner and the prima facie investigation material discloses about indulging in committing an offence of fraud on the innocent investors who have deposited the amount with the petitioner's bank and when such huge amount is involved in the fraud and also observed that there is a chance of absconding and attempting to tamper with the prosecution evidences and the Apex Court also observed the same in the judgment referred supra in RAMENDU CHATTOPADHYAY's case. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has not made out any ground to enlarge him on bail.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Lavina Pant vs State Of U.P And 2 Others on 29 July, 2022

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ramendu Chattopadhyay SC Criminal Appeal No.1711 of 2019 It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "companies, with the dishonest intention of deceiving and alluring investors, as well as agents and business developers be-fools the investors. Such economic offences having a deep-rooted conspiracy and involving a huge loss of investors money seriously. Company-respondent played a key role in the promotion of chit fund scam thereby cheating a large number of innocent depositors and misappropriating their hard earned money".
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maninder Sharma vs State Tax Officer on 31 August, 2022

Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466; CBI vs. Ramendu Chattopadhyay, Crl Appeal.No.1711 of 2019; Seniors Fraud Investigation Office vs. Nittin Johari & Anr.; (2019) 9 SCC 165; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439; State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 are relied upon. Perusal of the cited decisions would indicate that this Court has held that economic offences are also of grave nature, being a class apart which arises out of deep-rooted conspiracies and effect on the community as a whole is also to be kept in view, while consideration for bail is made.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 1 - J S Bedi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next