Allowed

J. Sekar, 49 Yrs, v. Assistant Director

Madras HC12 May 2017CRL OP/7146/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted bail to three petitioners accused in Prevention of Money Laundering Act cases. The court held that despite S. 45(1) PMLA limitations, long custody justified treating it as regular bail under S. 439 Cr.P.C. Bail was granted with stringent conditions including passport surrender, daily reporting, and non-interaction with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail after executing bonds with sureties by Sri Ten Lakhs each, staying at New Delhi, surrendering passports, and providing an undertaking to assist investigation without self-

J. Sekar, 49 Yrs, Vs Assistant Director — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twelfth day of May Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice S. BASKARAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION Nos.7146, 7178 and 7204 of 2017

¶5

J. SEKAR, [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED IN CRL.OP.7146/2017]

¶6

K.SRINIVASALU [ PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN CRL.OP.7178/2017]

¶7

M.PREM KUMAR [ PETITIONER/ ACCUSED IN CRL.OP.7204/2017] Vs 1 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, [ RESPONDENT IN CRL.OP.7146/2017] DIRCTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, CHENNAI ZONAL OFFICE, 2ND, 3RD FLOOR, MURUGESA NAICKER COMPLEX, NO. 84, GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006. ECIR/19/2016

¶8

2 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, [ RESPONDENT IN CRL.OP.Nos.7178 & DIRCTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, 7204/2017] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 2ND, 3RD FLOOR, NO.84, MURUGESA NAICKER COMPLEX, GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006. E.C.I.R.NO.CEZO/19/2016

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.VIKRAM CHOWDHRI SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S.B.PRAVEEN Advocate IN CRL.OP.7146/2017

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.S.ASHOK KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

¶11

M/S.THOMAS T JACOB, Advocate in CRL.OP.7178/2017

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S.B.SATISH SUNDAR, Advocate in CRL.OP.7204/2017

¶13

For Respondent : MR. N.RAMESH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR ED CASES IN ALL THE PETITIONS

¶14

PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

Admittedly, the petitioners have been interrogated in custody and they are in custody over a period of 50 days in this case. In such circumstances, the plea of the petitioners that they have cooperated with the respondent at all stages of investigation and the amount alleged to have been recovered from them are their own business income and as such there is no material to prove that they are guilty of the offence and further as the limitations of Section 45(1) of PMLA is not applicable, it should be treated as regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., and the petitions should be entertained.

¶17

In view of the above said discussion, this court is of the view that the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the above Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioners shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) on each of the petitioners executing a bond for a sum of Rs.Ten Lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned VIII Additional Sessions Court, CBI Cases, Chennai;

¶19

(ii) the petitioners shall stay at New Delhi and report before the Officer in charge of PMLA Case, Enforcement Directorate at Delhi, daily at 10 a.m., until further orders ;

¶20

(iii) The petitioners are directed to surrender their passport, if not already surrendered in connection with any other case, before the respondent-ED and shall not leave the country without obtaining prior permission from the respondent by filing a necessary affidavit with place of the trip and period;

¶21

(iv) The petitioners shall furnish a mobile phone number to the Investigating Officer prior to their release and shall ensure the same to be operational at least between 9.00 a.m., to 6.00 p.m.

¶22

(v) Petitioners shall not in any manner have any contact directly or indirectly with any person connected with the case either as a witness or as an accused or in any other capacity.

¶23

(vi) The petitioners shall file an undertaking to furnish all information and/or issue any written instructions and/or correspondence for and in relation to any specific purpose, as sought for by the ED for the purpose of facilitation of investigation, except any self incriminating disclosure.

¶24

-sd/-

¶25

12/05/2017

¶26

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶27

TRUE COPY

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶29

¶30

1 THE VIII ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, CBI CASES, CHENNAI 2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL. 3 THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR ED CASES, HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRCTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, CHENNAI ZONAL OFFICE, 2ND, 3RD FLOOR, MURUGESA NAICKER COMPLEX, NO. 84, GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006. 5 THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF PMLA CASE, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AT DELHI. 6 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRCTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, OFFICE, 2ND, 3RD FLOOR, NO.84, MURUGESA NAICKER COMPLEX, GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006.

¶31

+2 CC to M/S.B.PRAVEEN Advocate on payment of necessary chargesSr.NO.8984 +3 CC to M/S.THOMAS T JACOB, Advocate on payment of necessary charges-Sr.NO.8989

¶32

+2 CC to M/S.B.SATISH SUNDAR, Advocate on payment of necessary charges-Sr.NO.8988

¶33

CRL OP.Nos.7146, 7178 and 7204/2017 Date :12/05/2017 THS : 12.05.2017

J. Sekar, 49 Yrs, v. Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Sekar, 49 Yrs, v. Assistant Director

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

Similar cases

Malliga, F/a 61 Yrs, Vs State Rep by Its

Murugesh @ RENGANATHAN,M-39 Vs State Rep. by

S.Sathishkumar, 26 Yrs, Vs the Forest Range Officer

Suresh, 26 Yrs, Vs the Station House Officer

Ajith M/19 Yrs, Vs State Rep by

Mani, Aged 68 Yrs Vs State Rep.by