Rajkumar Daitapati S/O Shri ... vs Director Enforcement
2021 Latest Caselaw 6371 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

   S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16124/2021

Rajkumar Daitapati S/o Shri Jagannath Kumar, R/o Mati Mandap,
Sahi, Puri (Orissa)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
Director Enforcement, Through Shri Sitaram Meena, Assistant
Director, Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur Zonal Office, Second
Floor, Jeewan Nidhi, Jeewan Insurance Nigam Bhawan, Bhawani
Singh Road, Jaipur
                                                                   ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Aniket Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. D. Rastogi, ASG through VC Mr. Anand Sharma, Adv. through VC Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj, Adv. through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

Judgment Reserved on : 08/11/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 11/11/2021

The present bail application has been filed under Section 438

Cr.P.C. in connection with complaint No.04/2018 titled as Shri

Sitaram Meena, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur

Vs. Rajkumar Daitapati for the offence punishable under Section 3

read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,

2002 (Sessions Case No.37/2021 (ECIR No.JPZO/1/2015)

(Rajkumar Daitapati Vs. Enforcement Directorate)) and against

the order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the court of learned

Sessions Judge (the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002)

Special Judge (CBI) No.3, Jaipur Metorpolitan-I in Misc. Case

(2 of 5) [CRLMB-16124/2021]

No.31/2021 whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the bail

application filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case. Name of the petitioner is

not mentioned in the FIR. Petitioner was not a party to any

agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

after investigation, police submitted final negative report but trial

court had taken cognizance against the petitioner and other

persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Mr.

Kamal Bhasin is known to the petitioner. Complainant had made a

request to the petitioner for collection of money through proper

channel but due to legal constrained, petitioner could not send the

huge amount in foreign currency to the complainant. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had

informed the complainant for collection of money but complainant

did not turn and he had filed a complaint before Enforcement

Directorate. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

petitioner had deposited the same amount in Allahabad Bank

which was recovered by the E.D. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that petitioner had joined the investigation

and narrated the whole story.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that trial

court had issued warrant of arrest without assigning any cogent

reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the

petitioner filed an application under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C. for

conversion of non-bailable warrant into bailable warrant but the

said application was rejected by the trial court on 17.09.2021.

(3 of 5) [CRLMB-16124/2021]

Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. So, the petitioner

be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments

passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.89/2021

(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4657/2020) decided on

29.01.2021 and Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh &

Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.838/2021 (Arising out of SLP

(Crl.) No.5442/2021) decided on 16.08.2021.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that the anticipatory bail application filed by the

petitioner is totally misconceived and not maintainable. Learned

counsel for the respondent also submits that the petitioner had

not filed the revision of the rejection order dated 17.09.2021.

Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that petitioner is

involved in the commission of a serious economic offence of

money laundering. Learned counsel for the respondent also

submits that petitioner was in association of Kamal Bhasin and

misused the power of attorney issued to him and he got illegal

benefit by transferring property in the name of his company and

deposited Rs.80 lacs in his account and made FDR in the name of

his family members. So, looking to the gravity of offence, the

anticipatory bail be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon

the following judgments : (1) Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab

reported in (2018) 13 SCC 813; (2) Salauddin Abdul Samad

Shakh Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1996) 1 SCC

(4 of 5) [CRLMB-16124/2021]

667; (3) P. Chidambaram Vs. E.D. reported in (2019) 9 SCC

24; (4) Tamanna Begum Vs. E.D. in S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail

Application No.4148/2020 decided on 01.06.2020; (5)

Ambalal Punamchand Rashamwala Vs. State of

Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 1991 SCC online Bom 676;

(6) Himanshu @ Hemant Vs. State of Maharashtra reported

in 2015 (2) Mh.L.J.; (7) Girdhar Gopal Bajoria Vs. Rajesh

Kumar Sharma in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition

No.731/2021 decided on 23.09.2021; (8) Pooran Singh &

Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition

No.474/2010 decided on 25.05.2010; (9) Shyam Sunder

Singhvi Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition

No.273/2019 decided on 24.01.2020; (10) Shyam Sundar

Singhvi Vs. Union of India in SLP (Crl.) No.792/2020; (11)

Manubha Nanubha Kathi Vs. Commissioner of Police in

Special Civil Application No.9651/2009 decided on

14.05.2010; (12) Sanatan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. In SLP

(Crl.) No.7358/2021; (13) Dr. Ashok Singhvi Vs. Union of

India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6273/2020

decided on 06.07.2020; (14) Court on its own motion Vs.

State reported in 2018 SCC online Del. 12306; (15) Sh.

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in

(1980) 2 SCC 565; (16) Sushila Agarwal Vs. State of N.C.T.

of Delhi reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1; (17) Sudhir Kumar Kad

Vs. CBI in M.G.C. No.9763/2020 decided on 19.03.2020;

(18) Sudhir Kumar Kad Vs. CBI in Special Leave Petition

(Crl.) Diary No.10979/2020 decided on 24.04.2020; (19)

Virupakshappa Gouda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.

(5 of 5) [CRLMB-16124/2021]

reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406; (20) Y.S. Jaganmohan Ready

Vs. CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439; (21) State of Gujarat

Vs. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal reported in (1987) 2 SCC

364; (22) Madan Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in

(2018) 12 SCC 30; (23) State of Jharkhand Vs. Lalu Prasad

Yadav reported in (2017) 8 SCC 1; (24) Monica Bedi Vs.

State of U.P. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 284 and (25) Smt.

Janata Jha Vs. & Anr. Vs. Assistant Director of

Enforcement, Govt. of India & Anr. in CRMC No.114/2021

decided on 16.12.2013.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondent and perused the record.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case; specially,

to the fact that the petitioner had not challenged the order dated

17.09.2021 passed by the trial court. Petitioner is involved in

serious economic offence, the principle of law enunciated by

Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Chidambaram's case, but without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not

consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Hence, the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner

is dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin/158

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)