| |
| The Tax Publishers 2022 TaxPub(CL) 2850 (Tel-HC) PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002
Section 3
Investigating agency did not complete its investigation within statutory period, i.e., 60 days as required under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., therefore, petitioner was entitled for statutory bail, but Special Court wrongly rejected bail application, the order of the Special Court was set aside and the Special Court was directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
|
Offence of money laundering - Petition against rejection of statutory bail - Non-completion of investigation as per section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. - Whether petitioner is entitled for statutory bail
Petitioner was arrested for violation of section 3. He filed an application for grant of bail on the ground that authorities failed to submit charge sheet within stipulated period of 60 days. Special Court rejected the application on the ground that section 167 of Cr.P.C. was duly complied with by investigation agency so the petitioner was not entitled for statutory bail. The petitioner filed writ petition against the order on the ground that no charge sheet was on record on expiry of 60 days, therefore, he was entitled to the bail. Held: It was found that the investigating agency did not complete its investigation within the statutory period, i.e., 60 days as required under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The mandate of law is that on completion of investigation, the final report/charge sheet has to be filed within the statutory period in the format as laid down under section 173 Cr.P.C. It appeared that the authority had filed a formal charge sheet without any material.All these factors clearly pointed out that the investigating agency could not complete the investigation within the period prescribed. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled for statutory bail. Thus, the order of the Special Court was set aside and the Special Court was directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In favour of petitioner
A.Y. :
IN THE TELANGANA HIGH COURT
CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J.
Avasarala Venkateshwara Rao v. Directorate of Enforcement
Criminal Petition No. 6428 of 2022
4 August, 2022
Petitioner by: T.S. Anirudh Reddy Advocate
Respondent by: Anil Prasad Tiwari SC FOR ED Advocate
Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 1 in PMLA. SC. No. 240 of 2022 that is pending before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Hyderabad, the present Criminal Petition is filed.
2. Heard the submission Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri T. Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, as well as the learned Standing counsel for Enforcement Directorate.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|