TAMANNA BEGUM Vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Misc. Bail Application has been brought under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 10/2018 pending before the court of Special Judge, Communal Riot Cases / Special Sessions Court, Jaipur (Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the accused petitioner has been summoned through non bailable warrant for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

(2.) According to brief facts of the case it has been submitted that accused petitioner was not named in FIR No. 251/2015 registered by Anti Corruption Bureau under Sections 120B and 409 of IPC read with Sections 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12(1)(a)(c)(d) and Sections 13(2) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused petitioner was also not named in the charge-sheet filed after investigation pursuant to FIR No. 251/2015. Petitioner is widow of Late Md. Sherkhan, who has no connection with the alleged crime. It has been alleged by the respondent/s that amount of ? 2.65 crore was seized in FIR No. 251/2015 registered under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act . Petitioner has been involved in this case only on the basis that she filed an application in the trial court to get released the amount seized from her husband, as that amount legally belonged to her husband. There is no cogent and reliable evidence to connect the accused petitioner with the alleged crime. It has also been submitted that on 21.01.2019 learned trial court proceeding on a complaint filed by the respondent/s, took cognizance against the accused petitioner for offences puniahable under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and non bailable warrant was issued against her in the first instance, which was not legally justified. It has also been contended that she is an old lady suffering from various ailments, regarding which proper documentation has been filed in this case. It has also been submitted that looking to the present covid-19 pandemic, detention in custody would be hazardous to the health of the accused petitioner, particularly when no custodial interrogation is required as far as the case of accused petitioner is concerned since all the evidence available in this case are documentary evidence, which are lying with the respondent Department.

(3.) On the contrary, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India strongly opposed the bail application and has filed reply on behalf of the respondent/s to this bail application filed under Section 438 of CrPC.