Hridya Nand Tiwary Alias Hirdya Nand Tiwari Vs the Union of India through Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement Ranchi Zonal Office

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A No. 10969 of 2023 with Cr. M.P. No.2519 of 2024

---------------

Hridya Nand Tiwary @ Hirdya Nand Tiwari, aged about 46 years, s/o Sri Gorakh Nath Tiwari, r/o 42/1, Shop Plot, PO + PS-Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110092 and permanent r/o Uma Niwas, Near Mangal Bhawan, Kachahri Road, Po + PS+ District-Garhwa, State-Jharkhand

¶5

........ Petitioner (in both the cases) Versus

¶6

Union of India through Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi Zonal Office, PO-GPO, PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party (in both the cases)

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate For the O.P-ED : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate

¶9

Order No.16/Dated: 18^th October 2024

¶10

These two petitions, i.e., one has been filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in ECIR Case No.02 of 2023 being A.B.A No. 10969 of 2023 for the offences registered under section 3 punishable under section 4 of PML Act, 2002 and another challenging the issuance of process under section 82 of Cr.P.C against the petitioner is subject matter in Cr. M.P No.2519 of 2024 have been listed together in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024.

¶11

Mr. Shailesh Poddar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the process under section 82 of Cr.P.C has been issued against the petitioner on the pretext that the petitioner is evading his arrest, while, the fact is that the petitioner is before the Court of Law seeking statutory remedy of bail in apprehension of arrest by filing an application under section 438(2) of Cr.PC being A.B.A No.10969 of 2023, as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner is evading his arrest and, therefore, the process issued under section 82 of Cr.P.C cannot be said to be in terms of the provisions as contained therein.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted by citing the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

¶13

2

¶14

“Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office” reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 971 which has been delivered in a case relating to money laundering where the accused person has not been arrested till the date of submission of ECIR. There is no need to arrest him rather the requirement as has been laid down in the said judgment is to appear before the learned Special Judge for seeking bail on his personal bond.

¶15

It has further been submitted that as per judgment of “ Tarsem Lal” (supra) if the accused was not asked by the ED till filing of complaint, while taking cognizance on complaint under section 44(1) (b), as a normal rule, the Court should issue a summons to the accused and not warrant, and if the accused appears in pursuant to the summons, he shall not be treated as if he is in custody.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered with the said judgment, since, the ECIR in the present case has already been submitted and, hence, the petitioner needs to appear before the concerned Special Court for his release on furnishing his personal bond. But the petitioner apprehending his arrest that if he will be asked to appear before the learned Special Judge, there might be chances of his taking into custody.

¶17

Upon this, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-ED has submitted that there is no question of any arrest of the petitioner in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as has been rendered in the case of “ Tarsem Lal” (supra). The apprehension of the petitioner is baseless after the said judgment. He has further submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case the requirement as has been carved out therein is to appear before the concerned Special Judge by making an application that he is willing to furnish personal bond.

¶18

In view thereof, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that such liberty may be granted to the petitioner so that he may appear before the learned Special Judge by making an application showing his willingness that he is willing to furnish personal bond as also for recall of the order issuing the process under section 82 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

3

¶20

This Court, in view of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, particularly, the petitioner, is of the view that both these petitions are to be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to appear before the concerned learned Special Judge for the purpose of making application in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in “ Tarsem Lal” (supra) . 9. Accordingly, A.B.A No.10969 of 2023 and Cr. M.P No.2519 of 2024 stand disposed of. 10. This needs to be referred herein that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has undertaken before this Court that within two weeks he will appear before the concerned Special Court for the purpose of making such application in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “ Tarsem Lal” (supra) . It is made clear that if the petitioner will not appear before the concerned Special Court within the aforesaid stipulated period, the learned Court will have liberty to take all measures for securing his appearance so that the trial may not be interrupted.

¶21

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶22

Sudhir

Hridya Nand Tiwary Alias Hirdya Nand Tiwari v. the Union of India through Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement Ranchi Zonal Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hridya Nand Tiwary Alias Hirdya Nand Tiwari v. the Union of India through Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement Ranchi Zonal Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dhaneshwar Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madan Lal Bajaj Construction Private Ltd.,through Its Managing Director, Namely, Gourav Kumar Bajaj Vs the Uinon of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs

Govind Dusadh Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Jaishiv Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Yatindra Nath Singh Vs Union of India through Chief Administrative Officer (Con) East Central Railway

Bilsi Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand