Allowed

Krishna Kant Agnihotri v. Deputy Director Directorate Enforcement (P.C.Act) Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024/2308/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application by Krishna Kant Agnihotri against the Enforcement Directorate in a PMLA case. The court granted bail, noting the applicant's prior custody in the predicate offence without arrest by ED and his willingness to cooperate in ongoing proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; liberty to appear in PMLA proceedings within 15 days and furnish bond/sureties.

Krishna Kant Agnihotri Vs Deputy Director Directorate… — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70389

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2308 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Krishna Kant Agnihotri Opposite Party :- Deputy Director Directorate Enforcement (P.C.Act) Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rohit Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶7

By means of the present anticipatory bail application, the applicant has apprehended his arrest in Complaint Case No. 14/2019, FIR/ECIR/LKZO/09/2014, under Section 3/5 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short 'PMLA'), Police Station- Enforcement Directorate, District- Lucknow (in short 'ED').

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in the predicate offence, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Lucknow (in short 'CBI') had registered a Case No. RC006/2012/A/0018 dated 13.08.2012 under Section 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC & Sectioin 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of P.C. Act, 1988, after getting a complaint from D.s. Dharamsaktu, Chief Manager, LIC Trans Gomti Branch, Sector-E, Janki Puram, Ring Road Lucknow against seventeen officers/ officials of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) as well as against some private persons including the present applicant who is not the officer/ official of LIC.

¶9

On the basis of aforesaid case, the ED registered a case under provisions of PMLA bearing No. ECIR/09/PMLA/LZO/2014 dated 27.05.2014 against seventeen persons and other private persons as per FIR bearing RC-0062012A0018 dated 13.08.2012 registered by the CBI under Sections 120-B r/w 201, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A I.P.C. and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act.

¶10

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant remained in jail in more than one and a half years and got bail

¶11

on 26.02.2016 in CBI case bearing BAIL No. 11651 of 20015 (Krishna Kant Agnihotri Vs. State through CBI/ACB, Lucknow). Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the present applicant is regularly attending the trial proceedings of CBI case. The proceedings of PMLA are also running in the same court but he could not appear in a proceedings relating to PMLA. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that since the case of PMLA was registered in the year 20014, therefore, the applicant could have been taken into custody by the competent authority of ED when the applicant was under judicial custody in a case of CBI but no such exercise has been undertaken by the authorities of ED.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that presently the NBW has been issued against the present applicant in a proceedings relating to PMLA. He has further submitted that the present applicant is willing to participate in the proceedings relating to the PMLA, therefore, some protection may be given to him.

¶13

Per contra, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the ED has stated that the applicant has deliberately and intentionally avoided the proceedings of PMLA whereas he was fully aware that both the proceedings are pending before the same court. On account of non-cooperation of the present applicant, the proceedings relating to PMLA could not take progress. As per Sri Srivastava, the presence of the present applicant before the PMLA court is necessary so that the proceedings of PMLA could be conducted and concluded to its logical conclusion.

¶14

On being confronted on the point as to why the petitioner has not been arrested when he was already under the judicial custody till 26.02.2016, Sri Srivastava stated that after releasing from jail on bail on 26.02.2016, the applicant should have appeared in a proceedings relating to PMLA.

¶15

Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, since the applicant was not arrested by the ED when the applicant was already within the judicial custody relating the proceedings of CBI and the fact that the applicant is willing to participate in a proceedings relating to PMLA, the present anticipatory bail application is allowed. Liberty is given to the applicant to appear in a proceedings relating to PMLA before the court concerned within a period of 15 days from today or on the next date fixed, whichever is earlier, and shall furnish his personal bond and sureties as per the satisfaction of the court concerned and the learned Trial Court, after accepting such

¶16

personal bond and sureties, may release the applicant on bail. The applicant shall co-operate in the proceedings of PMLA and shall not misuse the liberty of bail so that the proceedings of PMLA could be conducted and concluded to its logical conclusion, strictly in accordance with law.

¶17

The present anticipatory bail application is disposed of in view of the aforesaid terms.

¶18

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 (Manoj K.)

¶20

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

Krishna Kant Agnihotri v. Deputy Director Directorate Enforcement (P.C.Act) Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kant Agnihotri v. Deputy Director Directorate Enforcement (P.C.Act) Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Singhal (Wrongly Mentioned as Rakesh Kumar Singhal in the Fir) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Sarojini Agrahari @ Sarojana Agrahari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Ajeet Singh and 19 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Union of India Thru. Oic A.S.C. (Supply) Supp Depot Mathura Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Chandan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others