Dismissed

Rajendra Singh v. Union of India Directorate of Enforcement Allahabad Sub Zonal

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2023/2419/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for non-cooperation of applicant in challenging summons earlier, noting five-year delay since rejection of Section 482 application. Bail may be considered if filed later.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected. Future bail applications to be considered separately.

Rajendra Singh Vs Union of India Directorate of… — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:71144

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2419 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajendra Singh Opposite Party :- Union Of India Directorate Of Enforcement Allahabad Sub Zonal

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rohit Tripathi

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Rohit Tripathi, the learned counsel for Directorate of Enforcement and perused the records.

¶8

2 . The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint No.04/2018: Session Case No336 of 2023 ECIR No.ECIR/05/PMLA/VSZO/2011 under Section 3/4 PMLA Act, 2000.

¶9

3. Sri Rohit Tripathi, the learned counsel for Directorate of Enforcement has filed a counter affidavit and has raised a preliminary objection that in furtherance of a complaint, the applicant was summoned to face trial by means of the order dated 02.4.2018. The applicant had challenged the summoning order by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.24521 of 2018 by means of the order dated 23.07.2018.

¶10

4. The applicant has approached the Special Court by filing an application for anticipatory bail in the year 2023. The aforesaid conduct of the applicant indicates hat he has not cooperated with the proceedings and, therefore, he is not entitled to be granted prearrest bail.

¶11

5 . Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the aforesaid preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement, this Court is of the

¶12

view that conduct of the applicant in approaching this Court seeking anticipatory bail after a period of 5 years since rejection of his application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging validity of the summoning order, indicates that he has not cooperated with the proceedings.

¶13

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is rejected . However, in case the applicant files any bail application, the same shall be considered and decided, without being influenced by rejection of this anticipatory bail application.

¶14

Order Date :- 31.10.2023 prateek

¶15

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Singh v. Union of India Directorate of Enforcement Allahabad Sub Zonal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh v. Union of India Directorate of Enforcement Allahabad Sub Zonal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Mahendra @ Mahesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Sonu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shiv Sachdev Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Satyam @ Uttam Chandr Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Gunjan Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.