Referred admirantly to Tarsem Lal, the applicant filed for anticipatory bail under PMLA in a case where investigation was completed and complaint filed. The court dismissed the application holding there was no apprehension of arrest, an essential condition for anticipatory bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70508
Court No. - 18
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2305 of 2024
Applicant :- Anand Shukla Opposite Party :- Govt. Of India Thru. Assistant Director Directorate Of Enforcement Allahanad Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Hemant Gupta,Naveen Kumar Kashyap Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rohit Tripathi
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
reason.
( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )
Order Date :- 18.10.2024 A.Nigam
Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the investigation is completed and there is no apprehension of arrest?
Whether the conditions laid down in Tarsem Lal apply when complaint is already filed in competent court?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tarsem Lal Vs. Directorate of EnforcementApplied¶8
Tarsem Lal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement: (2024) 7 SCC 61 · Who else cites this
Tarsem Lal Vs. Directorate of EnforcementApplied¶11
Tarsem Lal (Supra)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anand Shukla
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
