6.3 From the impugned judgment(s) and order(s)
passed by the High Court, it appears that
what is weighed with the High Court is that
chargesheet has been filed against respective
respondent No. 1 – accused and therefore, the
investigation is completed. However, the High
Court has failed to notice and appreciate that
the investigation with respect to the
scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002
by the Enforcement Directorate is still going
on. Merely because, for the predicated
offences the chargesheet might have been
filed it cannot be a ground to release the
accused on bail in connection with the
scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002.
Investigation for the predicated offences and
the investigation by the Enforcement
Directorate for the scheduled offences under
the PML Act are different and distinct.
Therefore, the High Court has taken into
consideration the irrelevant consideration.
The investigation by the Enforcement
Directorate for the scheduled offences under
the PML Act, 2002 is till going on.
7. As observed hereinabove, the High Court has
neither considered the rigour of Section 45 of
the PML Act, 2002 nor has considered the
seriousness of the offences alleged against
accused for the scheduled offences under the
PML Act, 2002 and the High Court has not at
all considered the fact that the investigation
by the Enforcement Directorate for the
scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002
is still going on and therefore, the impugned
orders passed by the High Court enlarging
respective respondent No. 1 on bail are
unsustainable and the matters are required
to be remitted back to the High Court for
afresh decision on the bail applications after
taking into consideration the observations
made hereinabove.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1401 OF 2023
Directorate of Enforcement Vs Aditya Tripathi
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1402 OF 2023
Author: M.R. SHAH, J.
MAY 12, 2023
Print Page