Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar Srivastava v. Govt. of India Thru. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2024ABAIL/2262/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, who faced charges under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court held that since the investigation was completed and a complaint had already been filed, there was no apprehension of arrest, which is an essential condition for granting anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted; application dismissed due to lack of apprehension of arrest.

Dinesh Kumar Srivastava vs Govt. of India Thru. Assistant… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70501

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2262 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- Govt. Of India Thru. Assistant Director Directorate Of Enforcement Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Hemant Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rohit Tripathi,Shiv P. Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Himanshu Hemant Gupta, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Shiv P. Shukla, the learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.ECIR/05/VSI/LZO/2012, Complaint Case No.02 of 2016, under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, registered at Police Station Directorate of Enforcement, Varanasi Sub Zonal Office, District Allahabad.

¶8

It has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the applicant was not arrested during investigation which already stands completed and a complaint has already been filed in the competent court. In these circumstances, there appears to be no apprehension of arrest of the petitioner which is an essential condition of grant of anticipatory bail in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement: (2024) 7 SCC 61 .

¶9

As there is no apprehension of the applicant' arrest the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed for the aforesaid

¶10

reason.

¶11

In case the applicant files any application before the learned trial court in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal (Supra), the same shall be considered and decided by the court concerned in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

¶12

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶13

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 A.Nigam

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Kumar Srivastava v. Govt. of India Thru. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Srivastava v. Govt. of India Thru. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement

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

X Rape Victim, Crime No 007 of 2022, Thru. Her Father/ Informant Vs Nisha Anand, Distt. Steering Committe Thru. Its Chairman / D.M., Amethi

Parminder Singh Ranhotra and Another Vs Shri Suryapal Gangwar, District Magistrate / Collector Lko.

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko and Another Vs Emergency Dhatri Sishu Care Foundation Thru. Auth. Repr. Toopilivenkatasravan Kumar Reddy and Anr.

Ram Khelavan Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Abdul Kadir Alias Kadir Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) District Gonda and 8 Others

Shiv Nath and 2 Others Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and Another