AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
In Cr.M.P. No.2254 of 2019 the prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 02.07.2019 passed in connection with ECIR Case No.01/2018, corresponding to ECIR/03/PAT/12/PMLA whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C was directed to be issued by the learned Judicial Commissioner-VI, cum –Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.
In Cr.M.P. No. 2795 of 2019 prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 16.07.2019 passed in connection with ECIR Case No.01/2018, corresponding to ECIR/03/PAT/12/PMLA whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C was directed to be issued by the learned Judicial Commissioner-VI, cum –Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that so far these petitioners are concerned, they have earlier moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.2790 of 2019 was filed by both the petitioners in which the interim protection was also passed on 10.12.2019. Considering that the interim protection was provided in Cr.M.P. No.2790 of 2019 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has found that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner was found infructuous and the same was disposed of and if the further necessity is there, they are put at liberty to take remedies in accordance with law. He submits that thereafter the Cr.M.P. No.2790 of 2019 was dismissed on 22.8.2023. He further submits that so far section 82 Cr.P.C process is concerned, that is not in accordance with law and the guidelines made by this Court in the Case of “Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam and Others v. The State of Jharkhand”, reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712 has not been followed.
Mr. Vidyarthi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent E.D. submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order and the petitioners are trying to evade to appear before the P.M.L.A court and that is why they are filing one case after the another before the High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that this Court may not interfere with these petitions.
It appears that the petitioners have moved for anticipatory bail which was rejected and it was challenged subsequently in the aforesaid S.L.P. and the interim protection was granted on 30.07.2019 and in the meantime, they have moved in Cr.M.P. No.2790 of 2019 and the said S.L.P was disposed of with liberty that if the Cr.M.P. No.2790 of 2019 is rejected they may take recourse under the law and subsequently the Cr.M.P. No.2790 of 2019 was rejected by order dated 22.8.2023. It appears that the interim protection were there to the petitioners either by this Court or by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further considering the process under section 82 Cr.P.C it appears that the date and time is not reflected in the said order which is one of the parameters to be taken into consideration for passing such order as decided by this Court in the case of “Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam and Others v. The State of Jharkhand”’.
In view of above, the impugned orders dated 02.07.2019 and 16.07.2019 passed in connection with ECIR Case No.01/2018, corresponding to ECIR/03/PAT/12/PMLA respectively, whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C was directed to be issued by the learned Judicial Commissioner-VI, cum–Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi is set aside.
These matters are remitted back to the learned court concerned to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Cr.M.P. No.2254 of 2019 and Cr.M.P. No.2795 of 2019 stand disposed of.