Orissa High Court
Pratap Kumar Samal vs Republic Of India ..... Opposite Party on 1 August, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.4362 of 2024
Pratap Kumar Samal ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Suryanarayan Biswal
-versus-
Republic Of India ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
M.R.Mishra, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
01.08.2024
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/ Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-
State.
3. The present application has been filed under Section 438
of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection
with CMC PMLA Case No.03/2024, corresponding to ECIR
bearing No.BBSZO/05/2022, pending in the Enforcement
Director Zonal office, Bhubaneswar, for alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 45 r/w 44 of Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner has been issued with a summons by the
Investigating Agency. In a case involving the provisions of
PMLA Act. He further contended that apprehending arrest, the
petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. In course of his argument
learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of
Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office decided in Criminal
Appeal No.2608 of 2024 vide judgment dated 16.05.2024.
Referring to the aforesaid judgment learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the in Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para-
23 clause-C in the judgment has specifically observed as
follows:-
"After a summons is issued under Section 204 of the
Cr.P.C. on taking cognizance of the offence punishable
under Section 4 of the PMLA on a compliant, if the
accused appears before the Special Court pursuant to the
summons, he shall not be treated as if he is in custody.
Therefore, it is not necessary for him to apply for bail.
However, the Special Court can direct he accused to
furnish bond in terms of Section 88 of the Cr.P.C."
5. Mr. Gopal Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the
Enforce Department on the other hand contended that in view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal's
case, the petitioner should have surrendered before the Court
below and upon surrendering, the petitioner should have and
furnished the bond as has been indicated in Para-23 (C) and (F)
of the said judgment. Instead the petitioner has approached this
Court by filing the present application.
"A bond furnished according to Section 88 is
only an undertaking by an accused who is not in
custody to appear before the Court on the date fixed.
Thus, an order accepting bonds under Section 88
from the accused does not amount to a grant of bail."
6. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the present anticipatory bail application
is not maintainable.
7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties on a careful examination on
the materials on record further taking note of the observation of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal's Case (supra), this
Court directs the petitioner to surrender before the Court below
and in such eventuality the learned Court shall follow procedure
as prescribed in Para-23 clause-C and F.
8. With the observation, direction the ABLAPL is disposed
of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
