YOGESH MITTAL Vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, without approaching the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act , 2002 (hereinafter called PMLA) for grant of bail, has preferred the present petition seeking bail in ECIR No.18/DZO-8/2016 primarily on the ground that his remand in judicial custody is illegal and without any jurisdiction of the learned Special Court to remand the petitioner any further after the presentation of the prosecution under Section 44 of the PMLA, and no cognizance having been taken thereafter as against the petitioner.

(2.) At the time, when this bail application was filed (i.e. on 15.06.2017), the petitioner had been remanded to E.D custody by the Special Court, PMLA, but no prosecution/complaint was filed qua the petitioner in the Special Court. As such, it was not possible for the petitioner to approach the Special Court, PMLA for bail. The Special Court, PMLA had no record of the petitioner till that time. The prosecution/complaint was filed only on 02.08.2017 during the pendency of this bail application.

(3.) Mr.Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that he is seeking bail on the ground of the remand of the petitioner to custody being illegal. Though, if the order of remand is found to be illegal, an accused may be entitled to be released but such order cannot be passed in a bail application and can only be directed in a criminal writ and that also by a Division Bench.