Allowed

Smt. Urmila Devi v. Directorate of Enforcement Lko. Zonal Office Lko.

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2024/687/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused apprehending arrest in a money laundering case. The applicant, who had cooperated for a decade without arrest, was found to satisfy PMLA Section 45 conditions despite allegations of financial misappropriation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond with two reliable sureties subject to conditions regarding availability for interrogation and prohibition of tampering with evidence.

Smt. Urmila Devi Vs Directorate of Enforcement Lko. Zonal… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 687 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Urmila Devi Opposite Party :- Directorate Of Enforcement Lko. Zonal Office Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Yadava,Aditya Singh,Rakesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rohit Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Smt. Urmila Devi, in Complaint Case No. 3514 of 2023, ECIR No./03/PMLA/LKZO/2013, under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Police StationEnforcement Directorate, District- Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The alleged offences against the applicant are of the financial year 2006-07 to 2009-10

¶8

It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in the predicate offence nor the charge sheet was filed therein. It is only when the ECIR was registered then the role of the applicant surfaced during the course of the investigation in the instant case. The applicant is a old and infirm person and she undertakes that she shall extend his full corporation in trial as and when required.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation for almost ten years and her custody was not even required for interrogation and the applicant was not arrested by the respondent agency. The applicant has already been examined extensively as far as her knowledge and proximity to the information is related.

¶10

It is also submitted that in the predicate offence when the subsequent charge sheet was filed on 28.03.2014, it is then the name of the applicant was mentioned. The applicant was merely

¶11

an account holder in District Cooperative Bank, Kishunpur, however, in the predicate offence, the applicant was granted bail on 14.10.2014. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant received any monetary benefit or was involved in any embezzlement. The only ground for implication is that the applicant held the bank account which allegedly has been misused but not by the present applicant. The applicant does not have any criminal history and even otherwise if on the face of the matter, the offence against the applicant is made out, it is punishable up to 7 years. Nevertheless, the applicant has participated in the investigation and there is no chance for the applicant to influence any witness or tamper with any evidence.

¶12

Shri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for Enforcement Directorate opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant on the ground that it is a matter where crores of rupees have been misappropriated and having regard to the twin conditions as enshrined under Section 45 of the PMLA, the applicant is not entitled for any discretion.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears to be an admitted case to the parties that during the course of investigation, applicant has cooperated in the investigation and the complaint has been filed by Enforcement Directorate without arresting the applicant. Since the applicant has not been arrested by the investigating agency, this Court does not find any necessity to place the applicant in prison only for the purpose of disposal of his regular bail application, Moreover, she has been granted regular bail in the predicate offence. It is assured that he will remain present before the trial court as and when her presence would be required and would cooperate in trial.

¶14

Keeping in view the fact that the applicant has not been arrested by Enforcement Directorate itself under Section 19 of PMLA and complaint has been filed and applicant except predicate offence is not having any other criminal antecedents, the twin conditions as enshrined under Section 45 of PMLA, in the considered opinion of this Court stand satisfied, more so when the applicant is apart from the predicate offence is not having any criminal antecedent.

¶15

Having considered the facts and circumstances and the submission made by respective parties including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant including that he has no criminal history and no apprehension has been expressed that the applicant is at flight risk, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant can be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing

¶16

any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Smt. Urmila Devi involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court Concerned, with the conditions:-

¶18

(a) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶19

(b) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶20

¶21

(d) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶22

(e) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶24

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming her independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

Order Date :- 29.4.2024 Asheesh

¶26

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

Smt. Urmila Devi v. Directorate of Enforcement Lko. Zonal Office Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Urmila Devi v. Directorate of Enforcement Lko. Zonal Office 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

Mohd. Asif Ansari @ Munnu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Rudra Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Civil Secretariat Lucknow, U.P.

Dhruv Narayan Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Daisy and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.