TAMMANA BEGUM Vs. UMANAND VIJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for both the parties. On 16.09.2020 on oral request of learned counsel for both the parties, State of Rajasthan through learned Public Prosecutor was impleaded as party respondent in the present bail application. Amended cause-title was also filed with an application for impleadement of State of Rajasthan as respondent No. 2. Since State of Rajasthan as already been impleaded as party respondent in the present bail application, amended cause-title is taken on record.

(2.) This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Sessions Case No.01/2019 (ECIR No. JPZO/10/2015, Criminal complaint No. 10/2018) for offences under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PML Act') and against the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge/Special Session Court, PML Act 2002/Communal Riots cases Jaipur Mahanagar, Jaipur, whereby Miscellaneous Bail Application No.37/2020 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner. Petitioner is wife of Late Sher Khan, who was made accused in FIR No.251/2015 registered under Section 120B, 409 of IPC and various Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act by the Bureau of Prevention of Corruption, she has been made party in the present complaint by the respondent without any basis. Money has not been recovered from the petitioner. She has not committed any crime. Petitioner has been made accused in this case only on the basis that she submitted an application under Section 451, 452 of Cr.P.C. whereas this application was dismissed and she did not get any benefit out of it. There is no direct involvement of the present petitioner in the offence of PML Act. Petitioner is under-going treatment for various diseases including infection of knees, for which operation is to be done. She is a woman. Learned trial court has committed an error in not considering provisions of Section 45 of the PML Act, wherein special provision in respect of family of accused person has been provided. Legal heirs of accused are legally entitled to request for refund of amount which was seized by Anti-Corruption Bureau or any other government department or bank. This cannot be treated as a criminal Act. She was not made an accused in the challan submitted in the case registered by Anti Corruption Bureau. Learned trial Court ought to have considered and decided petitioner's bail application on the basis of parity as this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court have already allowed bail applications of all other co-accused persons. It is submitted that co-accused Pushkar Raj Ameta, Pankaj Gehlot, Dheerendra Singh, Shyam Sundar Singhvi, and Sanjay Sethi have been released on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 12.05.2020. Co-accused Ashok Singhvi has been granted benefit of bail by order of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 13.08.2020. Petitioner's matter is on similar footings with other co-accused persons. Rather, her case stands on better footing than other co- accused persons. Hence, on the ground of parity, she is entitled to the benefit of bail. She has not abused any process of law because she was pursuing her legal remedy available under the law. Thereafter, due to various ailments, she could not surrender before learned trial Court after rejection of the anticipatory bail application by this Court. There is special provision under Section 45 of the Act for grant of bail to woman. Her name was not mentioned in the FIR lodged by Bureau of Prevention of Corruption. All the documents seized are lying either with the officers of the Department or with the Court. There is no scope for tampering of evidence and influencing the witnesses. The accused persons named in the FIR lodged by ACB have already been granted bail. Completion of trial will take considerable time.