0

Delhi Court grants Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal Bail; States that ED “is not acting without bias.”

Blog , , , , , , , ,

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) detained Kejriwal on March 21 after he was accused of being involved in an elaborate scheme to purposefully create gaps in the now-canceled Delhi Excise Policy for 2021–2022 in order to favor specific alcohol vendors. In light of the general elections, the Supreme Court granted him temporary bail in May, which was valid until June 1. He then turned himself in on June 2. Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal also countered that the ED was operating an extortion scheme and refuted the accusations. He was then granted bail in the excise policy case, but a Delhi court noted that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has not provided any direct proof against the Chief Minister regarding the proceeds of crime.

“The court has to take a pause to consider this argument which is not a potable submission that investigation is an art because if it is so, then, any person can be implicated and kept behind the bars by artistically procuring the material against him after artistically avoiding/withdrawing exculpatory material from the record. This very scenario constrains the court to draw an inference against the investigating agency that it is not acting without bias” the court stated.

It was taking time to obtain the evidence in any way, according to Vacation Judge Niyay Bindu of Rouse Avenue Courts, because the ED felt that the material on file was insufficient to continue against Kejriwal. It further stated that ED must be “prompt and fair” in order for the public to believe that the Agency upholds the natural justice principles. The court granted Kejriwal bail, noting that it is still unclear whether he is guilty prima facie.

This prompted the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to now approach the Delhi High Court to challenge the Bail Order.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

0

Karanataka HC grants bail: States that prima facie evidence does not preclude petitioners from using the special authority granted to the Court

Blog , , , , ,

CASE TITLE – Yunus Ahmed & Ors v. State of Karnataka

CASE NUMBER – CRL.P No. 4103 of 2024

DATED ON – 02.05.2024

QUORUM – MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

FACTS OF THE CASE

Chithradurga Rural Police registered a case in Crime No.133/2024 for offences under Sections 427, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 395, 448, 307, 323, 324 of Indian Penal Code, on 02.04.2024 at about 8:30.p.m., based on the complainant lodged by B.H.Gowdru alias B. Facts further reveal that there was an incident that had occurred at about 2:30.p.m., on 02.04.2024, where under a Muslim Woman by name Farzana Khanum had a conversation with B.H.Gowdru alias B. At that juncture, about 18 to 20 persons from Muslim community people have forcibly ingressed to the compound wall of the house of B.H.Gowdru and took serious objection in having a conversation with Muslim Woman. It is also contended that the mob assaulted with hands and legs and stones and had a Neck Chain weiging of 55 grams, One Bracelet of 30 grams and Two Rings of 20 grams and Cash of Rs.40,000/- from his pocket were stolen by the mob and they also caused damage to the car bearing registration NO.KA-16-N-6574, which was parked there. In respect of the same incident, Smt. Farzana Khanum also lodged a complaint before the Women Police Station, Chitradurga against B.H.Gowdru alias B on 03.02.2024 at 6:00.a.m.

 

ISSUES

Whether bail petition can be granted to the accused(s)?

 

STATUTES

Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which empowers the High Court and the Sessions Court with special powers regarding bail.

 

CONTENTION OF PETITIONERS

Reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition, Sri. Hasmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners contended that even assuming that entire allegations found in the complaint lodged by Sri. B.H.Gowdru to be accepted has gospel truth, no ingredients are attracted in so far as the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., prima-facie. He further contended that at any rate, since there is case and counter-case, the accused/petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further pointed out that having regard to the allegations levelled against the present petitioners in the incident, continuation of the accused/petitioners in Judicial custody no longer warranted and the apprehensions expressed by the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable conditions.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS

High Court Government Pleader opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the offence alleged against the petitioners are heinous in nature and it stands proved, the petitioners are liable for the punishment of life imprisonment and therefore, gravity of the offence is on the higher side.  He further contended that the investigation is still in inception stage and if the bail is granted to the petitioners, then the investigation process could be hamper. He also pointed out that the release of the petitioners on bail may result in reputation of the offences and therefore, sought for release of bail.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court looked over the evidence. Upon reviewing the available evidence, it is acknowledged that an incident related to a small matter has occurred. The complainant’s allegations would unequivocally show that the mob, which included the petitioners, attacked the complainant with hands, legs, and stones, damaged the car, and took valuables out of the complainant’s possession. Given that the accused individuals are being held in custody as of April 4, 2024, the investigation could have advanced significantly and, in any case, any necessary custodial questioning could have been finished. From the petitioners’ side, there are no prior criminal convictions. The court stated that as could be seen from the complainant averments itself, even though the prosecution has invoked Section 307 of I.P.C., prima-facie materials would not disentitle petitioners, from obtaining an order of grant of bail by resorting to special powers vested in this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Hence allowing the bail petition.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

0

K’taka High Court grants relief to Accused after nearly 3 years due to Failure of Witness testimony to provide Incriminating Evidence.

Blog , , , ,

CASE TITLE – Salman Chirik v. State of Karnataka

CASE NUMBER – CP NO.3782 OF 2024

DATED ON – 14.05.2023

QUORUM – Justice H.P. Sandesh

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

This petition was a successive bail petition of the Petitioner, who is accused the No.3. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka earlier in Crl.P.No.9818/2021, in view of the filing of the charge sheet, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court. The petitioner also approached this Court in Crl.P.No.7785/2022 and the same was rejected vide order dated 21.11.2022, on merits. The petitioner once again approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by filing a fresh petition in Crl.P.No.2600/2023 and the Court rejected the same vide order dated 14.06.2023, but with liberty to approach this Court after examination of the eye-witnesses.

 

ISSUES

Whether the evidence on record against the Petitioner/Accused No.3, is adequate to deny bail.

 

CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the injured witnesses, as well as the eye-witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and none of them have supported the case of the prosecution and during the course of cross-examination also, nothing was elicited from their mouth and nothing is there to appreciate in the matter on merits. He also brought to light that the Accused No.1 in the same case, facing similar charges was enlarged on bail by this same Court vide order dated 29.07.2022, and stated that the Petitioner in turn had been in Custody for 2 years and 8 months. He further went on to mention that Accused Nos.5 and 7 and this Petitioner are in custody and other than this petitioner and accused Nos.5 and 7, all are on bail. The learned counsel argued that in view of the injured witnesses and eye-witnesses who have not supported the case of the prosecution, the Court has to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

 

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State submitted that the charges levelled against the Petitioner is different and the evidence on record is different. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka after hearing the arguments of both the parties, looked into the depositions of the injured witnesses and eye-witnesses. They stated P.W.1 to P.W.3, who have sustained injuries in the incident, though P.W.1 stated that when he went to pacify the Galata, he had sustained injuries on above the left eye, but he says that the accused persons were not there in the spot and his brother and Yasin were not subjected to assault by this petitioner. P.W.2 stated that someone had inflicted injury on his cheek and the said person is not before the Court. He was subjected to cross-examination and nothing had elicited from his mouth either. P.W.3 though says that he was also assaulted, none of the accused persons, who were present before the Court assaulted him and he had turned hostile. P.W.4 to P.W.7 are the eye-witnesses. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka stated that they have also not stated anything about the incriminating evidence about the petitioner herein and that when such being the material on record and when the eye-witnesses and the injured witnesses have been examined, in the absence of incriminating evidence, the petitioner is entitled for bail and the Criminal Petition was allowed, certain to some conditions, those being: (i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

0

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Chartered Accountant Accused of Money Laundering 

Blog , , , , ,

Case Title: Manish Kothari (Presently in JC) v. Director of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue Headquarter Investigation Unit 

Date of Decision: 22nd September 2023 

Case Number: Bail Application 2341 of 2023 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma 

 

Introduction 

   

This case revolved around a bail application filed under Section 439 read with Section 167(2) and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by Manish Kothari, the petitioner, who was in judicial custody. The petitioner sought bail in connection with CT Case No. 13/2022-ECR/KLZ0/41/2020 dated 25/09/20 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 

 

Factual Background 

  

The petitioner’s bail application had been previously dismissed by the Special Judge on 09.06.2023. The dismissal was primarily based on the ground that the petitioner failed to meet the threshold of Section 45 of the PMLA. The trial court had held that the petitioner actively assisted co-accused individuals in converting illicit funds into legitimate money and was involved in money laundering. 

 

Additionally, the trial court considered the case a serious economic offense, emphasizing that the petitioner could not be treated differently under the proviso clause of Section 45 of the PMLA, which deals with the share of an accused in the tainted money. The trial court was of the opinion that the petitioner’s role was connected to a substantial amount, approximately Rs. 48 Crores, attributed to the co-accused Anubrata Mondal and his daughter Sukanya Mondal. 

 

Legal Issues 

   

  1. Whether the petitioner meets the criteria for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA? 
  2. Is there sufficient evidence to establish the petitioner’s involvement in money laundering? 
  3. Are the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA admissible as evidence?

 

Contentions of the Petitioner 

   

  • The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and a qualified chartered accountant with no prior criminal record.  
  • The petitioner provided professional services to Anubrata Mondal and his family, primarily related to income tax filing.  
  • The petitioner’s role was limited to filing income tax returns and was not involved in any illegal activities.  
  • The prosecution’s case is based mainly on statements of co-accused individuals, which contain contradictions and should not be relied upon.  
  • The petitioner’s arrest grounds were not supplied to him, violating his rights. 

 

Arguments by the Prosecution 

   

  • The prosecution argued that the petitioner played a significant role in managing the finances of Anubrata Mondal and his family in connection with the proceeds of crime generated from illegal activities like cross-border cattle smuggling.  
  • They alleged that the petitioner helped in projecting tainted money as untainted and participated in the creation of benami assets and companies for laundering the proceeds of crime.  
  • The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of economic offenses and the need to treat them differently. 

 

Observation and Analysis 

   

The court observed that at the bail stage, it should consider the probability of the accused’s guilt and whether they are likely to commit further offenses while on bail. The court should not conduct a detailed examination of evidence or make definitive findings of innocence.  

   

The petitioner’s role as a chartered accountant primarily involved tax-related services. The court noted that the allegations against the petitioner did not involve activities beyond the scope of his profession. The veracity of the prosecution’s case and the shifting of blame by co-accused should be evaluated during the trial. 

 

Decision of the Court 

   

The court granted bail to the petitioner, considering the principles of broad probabilities and the prima facie nature of the case. The bail was granted with specific conditions, including surrendering the passport, providing contact information, and refraining from tampering with witnesses or engaging in criminal activities. 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary 

Click here to view judgment

0

The Bombay High Court at Goa grants bail to accused charged with raping a minor girl on grounds of recent statements of the victim and her mother taken under Sec 164 CrPC

Blog, blog ,

The Bombay High Court at Goa grants bail to accused charged with raping a minor girl on grounds of recent statements of the victim and her mother taken under Sec 164 CrPC

Title: Sunil Vithal v. State of Goa

Decided on: July 11, 2023

Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1365

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE M.S. KARNIK

Introduction

The Bombay High Court at Goa granted bail to an accused charged with offences under Section 376(3) of the Penal Code, 1860, Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, Sections 4, 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) against a minor girl.

Facts of the Case

This is an application for bail for offences punishable under Sections Section 376(3) of the Penal Code, 1860, Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, Sections 4, 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The victim’s age at the time was 10 years and the accused’s was 46 years. The offence against the victim girl was committed in August 2020 when the victim had gone with her parents during Ganesh Chaturthi at the house of the accused where the victim’s mother was working as a house help. The incident was reported in May 2023 by the victim to the Counsellor of the boarding school. Apparently, the victim was traumatised and, therefore, did not earlier inform or report the incident to anyone.

Court Analysis and Judgement:

The Court took into account that after the applicant was arrested on 06.05.2023 and the investigation was completed, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. on 11.05.2023. In this statement, the victim stated that no incident has occurred with respect to her and she does not have any grievance or any complaint against anybody. The victim’s mother, in her statement, stated that she was not aware of any such incident that had taken place. The victim also refused to undergo a medical examination. The Court took into account all of these factors but refrained from making any observations on the merits of the contentions. The observations were limited to the consideration of this bail application and by taking an overall view of the matter, the applicant was released on bail for a bond of Rs. 25000.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Reema Nayak

 

1 2