The Allahabad High Court has quashed a condition imposed by a Special Anti-Corruption Court on an accused in a money laundering case.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Meena Anand.
The facts of the case are that the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad imposing six conditions.
The applicant is aggrieved by the condition No 1, imposed upon her while granting anticipatory bail to her, which is as follows:-
“That the applicant/accused will deposit the said amount of Rs 2.5 crore along with 10% simple interest for every year from the date of receipt of said amount i.e 25.09.2018, in the court within one month of passing of the order.”
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the applicant with a prayer to set aside the condition No 1 imposed by the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad in anticipatory bail order dated 18.01.2024 of the applicant, arising out of case under Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Jitendra Prasad Mishra, counsel appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate, upon instructions, submits that during investigation, neither the account of the applicant was seized nor the property of the applicant was attached. Even the submissions made on behalf of the applicant that recovery of the said amount can only be done in accordance with due process of law provided under Prevention of Money Laundering Act has also not been denied by the counsel for the Enforcement Directorate.
In reply counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned condition No 1 of the anticipatory bail order dated 18.01.2024 is onerous and unreasonable under the facts of the case. Object of imposing conditions is to secure the attendance of the accused and not to ruin the business of the accused-applicant.
“In the case of Sheikh Ayub (Supra), facts of the case before the Apex Court were that by the impugned order the appellant was granted bail and directed to deposit Rs 2,50,000/- which is alleged to be the amount misappropriated by the appellant. There was also a condition for furnishing a surety bond for Rs 50,000/-. In the circumstances of the case, Apex Court held that direction to deposit Rs 2,50,000 was not warranted, as part of the conditions for granting bail and observed that the direction to deposit Rs 2,50,000/- is deleted and subject to this modification the order passed by the Single Judge granting bail is confirmed.
In the case of Sumit Mehta (Supra), the only point for consideration was whether the condition of depositing an amount of Rs 1,00,00,000/- in fixed deposit for anticipatory bail is sustainable in law and whether such condition is outside the purview of Section 438 of the Code?
Having heard the submissions of counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that in the light of judgments of the Apex Court as discussed above, the Condition No 1 of anticipatory bail order dated 18.01.2024 is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed”, the Court observed while allowing the application.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the Condition No 1 of the order dated 18.01.2024.