Case Law Details
Chakresh Kumar Jain Vs Union of India (Patna High Court)
Introduction: The Patna High Court dismissed the second anticipatory bail application filed by Chakresh Kumar Jain in a case registered under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The decision mirrors an earlier rejection of anticipatory bail plea by his father, Pawan Kumar Jain, highlighting a stringent approach to cases of alleged money laundering.
Analysis: The judgment by the Patna High Court is seen as a reaffirmation of the court’s commitment to ensuring rigorous scrutiny of anticipatory bail applications, especially in cases involving serious economic offences like money laundering. The petitioner’s counsel’s argument that his client’s case is similar to his father’s case, who was granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court, failed to persuade the court. The court maintained that it didn’t feel compelled to revisit the merits of the case, following an earlier rejection by a learned Co-ordinate Bench.
Conclusion: This ruling by the Patna High Court reflects the growing trend of Indian courts taking a stern stance on allegations of financial crimes such as money laundering. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law. It also signals a potential deterrent for economic offenders, reinforcing that the provision of anticipatory bail is not a matter of right but rather contingent on the nature of the allegations and the merits of the case.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the E.D.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner on merit was rejected by an order dated 23.01.2020 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 34788 of 2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that this is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.
The Court is not persuaded to enter into the merits of the case at this stage, as earlier the case of the petitioner was rejected on merit by a learned Co-ordinate Bench.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that father of this petitioner, Pawan Kumar Jain, is also an accused in the present case. It is further submitted that the anticipatory bail application of Pawan Kumar Jain was also rejected like that of the petitioner vide order dated 16.07.2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5704 of 2020, thereafter, again Pawan Kumar Jain filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 64266 of 2022 and the same was also rejected by an order dated 17.03.2023 against which Pawan Kumar Jain moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to appeal (Crl.) No. 5485 of 2023.
Learned counsel next submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with a direction to co-operate in the trial.
Learned counsel next submits that the case of the petitioner is also on a similar footing like his father, Pawan Kumar Jain, and as such the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application be considered on merits.
Since the learned Co-ordinate Bench by order dated 23.01.2020 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 34788 of 2019 has already rejected the anticipatory bail application on the ground which is being urged by the petitioner presently, as such the Court does not feel persuaded to again enter into the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
