AVINASH NIVRITTI BHOSALE Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Applications are filed challenging the order dtd. 16/5/2023 passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai, thereby extending the judicial custody of the Applicant. Extension of judicial custody is challenged on the grounds interalia that (i) no application was filed for extension of the judicial custody, (ii) that the order passed is not a reasoned order, (iii) that the Applicant was not produced before the Sessions Court while granting judicial custody and (iv) that the Judge who has passed the impugned order dtd. 16/5/2023 is not designated as Special Judge under the provisions of sec. 43 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act, 2002).

(2.) Mr. Aggarwal, the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, while fairly agreeing that the issues would require consideration by way of detailed hearing, would request this Court to consider grant of interim relief for releasing the Applicant during the pendency of the present Applications. He would rely upon the provisions of Rule 4 of the Criminal Manual issued by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. He would also rely upon various judgments of the Apex Court and of High Courts, particularly the judgment in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Aaditya vs. State of Gujrat, (Criminal Appeal No.1656 of 2022), Ram Narayan Singh vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1953 SC 277, judgment of the Madras High Court in K. Chandran vs. The Inspector of Police, P. Navaneetha Krishna vs. The Commissioner of Police, and judgment of the Apex Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.742 of 2020.

(3.) I have also heard Mr. Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India and Mr. A.M. Chimalkar, the learned Counsel for CBI.