A Single Bench of the Patna High Court rejected the second anticipatory bail application filed in apprehension of arrest for offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002 (PMLA).
The petitioner, Chakresh Jain apprehended his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of the petitioner, Pawan Kumar Jain, is also an accused in the present case and that the anticipatory bail application of Pawan Kumar Jain was also rejected like that of the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the Supreme Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner’s father with a direction to co-operate in the trial.
The counsel further submitted 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.
Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002 (PMLA) states that whoever commits the offence of money-laundering shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
The Proviso to Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002 (PMLA) states that where the proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering relate to any offence specified under paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the words ‘which may extend to seven years’, the words ‘which may extend to ten years’ had been substituted.
Rejecting the application for anticipatory bail the Patna High Court Bench of Justice Satyavrat Verma observed that “the Co-ordinate Bench 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.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
