UMA CHARAN SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel, Shri Vipin Sharma appearing for the accused petitioners submits that a complaint had been registered against the accused petitioners for offences u/s 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He submits that the learned lower court had summoned the accused petitioners by non-bailable warrants. He submits that no interrogation is required. Learned counsel submits that in similar offence, one accused person Manju Tanwar has already been released on anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 17.9.2019 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12011/2019. So, the accused petitioners may also be given the same treatment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the accused petitioners placed reliance on Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No. 941/2009, decided by Apex Court on 6.5.2009.

(3.) Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the anticipatory bail application. Reliance has placed on P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No. 1340/2019 and Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2018 (13) SCC 813. It is contended that after filing of the complaint and issuance of arrest warrant protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not given to the accused. It is also contended that since arrest warrants have been issued, the only course available to the accused is to seek regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. from the concerned court.