Allowed

Ram Murat Yadav v. Directorate of Enforcement Thru. Assistant Director Govt. India

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2024/134/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application in a PMLA complaint arising from alleged food-grain siphoning from an FCI go-down, with proceeds of about Rs. 2 lakh partly used to buy agricultural land. The applicant had cooperated throughout investigation and was bailed in the predicate offence. The court found Section 45 twin conditions satisfied and granted conditional anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Conditional anticipatory bail: release on arrest or appearance within 20 days on furnishing personal bond with two sureties, subject to listed conditions including surrender within 20 days.

Ram Murat Yadav Vs Directorate of Enforcement Thru… — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16360

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 134 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Murat Yadav Opposite Party :- Directorate Of Enforcement Thru. Assistant Director Govt. India Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Yadav,Anita Singh,Gajendra Nath Singh,Nagendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rohit Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the E.D. is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate and perused the record.

¶8

The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Ram Murat Yadav in Complaint No. 04 of 2018, S.T. No. 336 of 2023, ECIR No. ECIR/05/PMLA/VSZO/2011, under Section 3/4 PMLA, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication and no offence as claimed by the Enforcement Directorate has been committed by him.

¶10

It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicant are to the tune that he had been given the charge of the go-down at Nawabganj, Gonda during the period from December, 2004 to June, 2006 and had helped the other coaccused persons to siphon a huge amount of food-grains from the said go-down so that the same may be sold in open market and, therefore, have caused a big loss to the public exchequer. It is also alleged that he has earned about Rs. 2,00,000/- as proceeds of the crime and out of these Rs. 2,00,000/- , Rs. 62,000/- have been used for purchasing an agricultural land situated at Mauja Gorayaghat and Sirsi Pargana- Mahulipurav, Tehsil Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar in the name of his wife Smt. Rajmati Devi.

¶11

Highlighting the above facts, it is vehemently submitted that the allegations which have been levelled against the applicant are false and could not be believed on the touchstone of probability as applicant was only a Class-IV employee and by any stretch of imagination he may not be given a charge of the go-down and it appears that applicant has been made a scapegoat.

¶12

It is further submitted that applicant has cooperated throughout the investigation and it was due to his cooperation there appears no eventuality before the investigating officer to arrest him and the complaint has been filed without arresting him.

¶13

It is next submitted that applicant had appeared before the investigating officer as and when his presence was required and since he has cooperated in the investigation, he will also cooperate in the trial and would remain present before the trial court/special court as and when his presence would be required and would not seek any adjournment especially when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance.

¶14

It is also submitted that in the predicate offence also the applicant has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28.10.2013 passed in Bail No. 1187 of 2013.

¶15

It is further submitted that the alleged incident is shown to have occurred in the year 2004 and the case has been registered by the Enforcement Directorate in the year 2011 and the investigation had taken almost seven years.

¶16

Shri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, however, opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant on the ground that having regard to the twin conditions provided under Section 45 of the P.M.L.A., the applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that applicant at the relevant point of time was working as Class-IV employee and the allegations against him are that as he was having custody of the relevant go-down of the F.C.I., he in connivance with the other co-accused persons had helped in siphoning the food-grains which was earmarked for being distributed through fair price shops and have earned the proceeds of the crime to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is also alleged that out of these Rs. 2,00,000/-, he has used Rs. 62,000/- for purchasing an agricultural land in

¶18

the name of her wife.

¶19

The defence of the applicant appears to be that being a Class-IV employee he can never be having any authority to help the other accused persons to siphon the amount of food-grains as shown in the complaint. It also appears to be an admitted situation that applicant has cooperated throughout the investigation and without arresting him, the complaint has been filed and the applicant has been granted bail in the predicate offence also. Thus, having regard to the fact that investigating agency has not arrested the applicant during investigation and apart from predicate offence applicant is not involved in any criminal case, the twin conditions as enumerated under Section 45 of the PMLA stands satisfied.

¶20

Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra : (2011) 1 SCC 694, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 and in Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others ':(2021)6 SCC 64, liberty of the applicant may be protected.

¶21

Thus, the instant anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Ram Murat Yadav is allowed and it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant under any process of the trial court or on his appearance before trial court within 20 days from today i.e. till 14.03.2024, whichever is earlier, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Special Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶22

(i). The applicant if not arrested earlier, shall surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today and will cooperate in the trial.

¶23

(ii). The applicant shall Cooperate in the investigation and will make himself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact, in case of further investigation.

¶24

(iii). The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during his release on anticipatory bail.

¶25

(iv). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and specially when the prosecution witnesses are present in

¶26

court.

¶27

(v). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶28

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and shall proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶29

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶30

Order Date :- 23.2.2024

¶31

Praveen

¶32

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Murat Yadav v. Directorate of Enforcement Thru. Assistant Director Govt. India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Murat Yadav v. Directorate of Enforcement Thru. Assistant Director Govt. India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Another

Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Raj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Isarar @ Isarar Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Talib vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Rashid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.