Directorate of Enforcement v. Satish Chandrakar
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:6162 NAFR CRMP No. 2530 of 2024 Order reserved on 17/10/2024 Order passed on 03/02/2025 Suraj Chokhani S/o Ramesh Kumar Chokhani Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 430, Ae Block, Sector-I, Salt Lake, Kolkata, West Bengal. 700064...........(Currently In Judicial Custody At Raipur Central Jail) versus ... Petitioner Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India Represented By Its Assistant Director, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Raipur Zonal Office, A-1 Block, 2nd Floor, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Agrawal, Advocate (through virtual mode) along with Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent/ED : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal C.A.V. Order 1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 31.08.2024 (Annexure A/1), passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Money Laundering Act)/4th Additional Sessions Judge, Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2
Legal Reasoning
Raipur, in ED Case No. 1 of 2024, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner seeking permission to call for 45 minutes to his lawyer in every week, audio-video calls for 30 minutes in every week to his family members, providing a separate room for meeting with the lawyer and to discuss the legal strategy, to provide a separate room to meet his family members in the jail and also to provide a laptop or i-pad with related devices to the applicant in the jail. The petitioner has prayed the following reliefs in the instant petition: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court that in view if the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the present case: i. Pass necessary orders and directions thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the Ld. Special Court, PMLA, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in the matter titled "Directorate of Enforcement vs Satish Chandrakar" in Spl. PMLA Case No. 01/2024 in ECIR/RPZO/10/2022 dated 06.10.2022 wherein the application of the Petitioner seeking the reliefs as prayed for was dismissed. AND ii. Pass necessary orders and directions thereby directing the Jail Authorities to permit the Petitioner to have at least two legal calls of 45 minutes' duration every week with his lawyers for each case by virtual mode in addition to present physical mode. AND iii. Pass necessary orders and directions thereby permitting the Petitioner to have two audio/video calls of 30 minutes duration each per week with his family members in addition to present physical mode. AND iv. Pass necessary orders and directions thereby directing whenever physical meeting is there in the Jail, the lawyers/legal advisors of the Petitioner be permitted to meet him in a separate room of the Jail Superintendent to discuss the legal strategy as to pending cases and the Jail Authorities may be kept beyond the hearing range but within visible distance. 3 AND V. Pass necessary orders and directions thereby whenever physical meeting is there in the Jail, the Petitioner be permitted to meet his family members physically in a separate room of the Jail Superintendent. AND vi. Pass necessary orders and directions thereby permitting the Petitioner to take along with him in jail internet disabled laptop and/or iPad and related devices viz. mouse, pen-drive, etc. containing Prosecution Complaint(s), Original Applications, etc. AND vii. Pass any other order and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the ECIR bearing No. RPZO/10/2022, dated 06.10.2022 and amended ECIR dated 02.09.2023 has been registered against the present petitioner and other accused persons for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as PMLA, 2002”). In the ECIR, it is alleged that about 6 FIRs have been registered against the various accused persons for the offences of Cheating and Criminal Conspiracy, which are the scheduled offences under the PMLA, 2002. The said FIRs have been registered, whose details are given herein below: (i) FIR No. 112 of 2022, dated 30.03.2022, registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg for the offence under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC, (ii) FIR No. 206 of 2023, dated 02.06.2023 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Vishakhapatnam Commissionerate, Andhra Pradesh, (iii) FIR No. 37 of 2023, dated 17.03.2023 registered at Police Station Bhilai Bhatti, District Durg for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, 4 (iv) FIR No. 86 of 2023, dated 27.02.2023 registered at Police Station Chhavani, District Durg for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. (v) FIR No. 336 of 2023, dated 10.08.2023 registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur for the offence under Sections 420, 34 of IPC. (vi) FIR No. 685 of 2023, dated 11.08.2023 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. ******* The Enforcement Directorate (in short ‘ED’) had filed the first prosecution complaint on 20.10.2023 in the present ECIR under Section 44 read with Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 for the offence under Section 3/4 of the PMLA, 2002 against 14 accused persons. In the first ECIR, the present petitioner has not been made an accused. On 01.01.2024, the ED filed a supplementary prosecution complaint in the present ECIR against 5 accused persons, in which also the present petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused. On the ECIR submitted by the ED, the Learned Special Court took cognizance of the offence and issued notices to the other accused persons, who were not in custody, vide order dated 19.01.2024. ******* On 28.02.2024, at about 6:50 AM, the ED conducted search and seizure proceedings in the residential premises of the petitioner at AE Block, Sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata in the presence of the petitioner. The search was continued till 4:50 AM on 29.02.2024 i.e. almost about 24 hours and various Panchnamas were prepared during the search. The said Panchnamas were also signed by the present petitioner. On 29.02.2024, the petitioner was taken to the ED office at Raipur along with the sister-in-law of the petitioner and at Raipur, he was put up in the Ivy Hotel by the ED. 5 ******* On 03.03.2024, the petitioner was formally arrested and was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, who was the Remand Duty Magistrate and the ED sought custody of the petitioner for further investigation. After the investigation, the prosecution complaint has been filed against the petitioner and ED case No. 1 of 2024 is registered by the learned Special Judge (PMLA), Raipur. ******* During the proceeding of the ED case, the petitioner filed an application on 14.08.2024 before the learned Special Court, Raipur, seeking the following reliefs: “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a. Pass necessary orders and directions thereby allowing the present application and directing the Jail Authorities to have at least two legal calls of 45 minutes' duration every week with his lawyers for each case by virtual mode in addition to present physical mode. b. To permit the applicant/accused to have two audio/video calls of 30 minutes duration each per week with his family members in addition to present physical mode. c. Pass necessary orders and directions thereby whenever physical meeting is there in the Jail, the lawyers/legal advisors of the Applicant be permitted to meet him in a separate room of the Jail Superintendent to discuss the legal strategy as to pending cases and the Jail Authorities may be kept beyond the hearing range but within visible distance. d. Pass necessary orders and directions thereby whenever physical meeting is there in the Jail, the Applicant/Accused be permitted to meet his family members physically in a separate room of the Jail Superintendent. e. Pass necessary orders and directions thereby permitting the Applicant/Accused be permitted to take along with him in jail internet disabled laptop and/or iPad and related devices viz. mouse, pen-drive, etc. 6 containing Prosecution Complaint(s), Applications, etc. Original f. Pass any other order and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” In the application, the petitioner averred that the respondent/ED has filed their main prosecution complaint having 8292 pages, the first supplementary prosecution complaint having 1936 pages, the second supplementary prosecution complaint having 3093 pages and third supplementary prosecution complaint was having 2601 pages, thus the entire prosecution complaint is about 15922 pages. Total 98 witnesses have been cited. Presently, the applicant is allowed to meet his counsel at Central Jail, Raipur for a short time that too through a glass window and through telephone twice a week. In such short period, he is unable to discuss the legal strategy with his lawyer, particularly in view of the voluminous record of the case. There are multiple companies involved in the case and the respondent/ED freezing the accounts of the companies, which pertains to the present petitioner, for which also he makes to discuss at length with his lawyer as well as his family members. Further, to maintain confidentiality, he requires a separate room to discuss about the case as well as the other affairs of the companies with his lawyer and family members. It is further averred in the application that in such a voluminous record of the case, the petitioner is not able to prepare notes for briefing to his counsel and to prepare the case for his defence. The non-providing of the proper facilities to the petitioner in the jail is violative of Articles 21 and 39-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner quoted various judgments passed by the 7 Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Bombay High Court in the application and prayed for the aforementioned reliefs in the application. ******* After hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge has
Decision
disposed of the application filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 31.08.2024 and directed the Jail Authorities to permit the petitioner with his lawyer and family members under the provisions of jail manual. It is also directed that the petitioner shall also be permitted to meet his family members in the jail premises under the provisions of jail manual. It is further directed that during the incarceration of the petitioner, his prayer with respect to providing the laptop or i-pad along with internet facilities and other connected devices shall be considered by the Jail Superintendent under the provisions of jail manual. The said order dated 31.08.2024 is under challenge in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Court has erred in passing the order dated 31.08.2024 by holding that the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the application shall be considered by the Jail Superintendent under the provisions of jail manual, which gave discretion to the Jail Superintendent to decide the issue as raised by the petitioner. The learned trial Court should have considered the rights of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody since 11.03.2024 and instead of granting relief to the petitioner, the discretion was given to the Jail Superintendent. The learned trial Court should have considered the voluminous record and number of 8 witnesses, which needs a detailed discussion with his lawyer and to prepare a note for himself to assist his lawyer in his defence, which is not possible without having any electronic gadget having an internet facility. Depriving from providing proper facilities to defend his case is violative of Articles 21 and 39-A of the Constitution of India, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Asgar Yusuf Mukadam and others v. State of Maharashtra and another” 2004 SCC Online Bom 1221. He would further submit that the learned trial Court should also have granted permission to meet the petitioner with his lawyer and family members in a separate room to maintain confidentiality and privacy. He may also be permitted to use laptop/i-pad and should have directed the Jail Authorities to provide the said electronic gadget having internet facilities to proper defend his case, as the under-trial prisoner are also having their fundamental rights to provide assistance to defend his case. The learned trial Court ought to have considered that it would not be possible for anyone to make notes from 15922 pages without any help of any electronic gadget like laptop/i-pad. He would further submit that now a days, the judiciary has already adopted video conferencing and an electronic system of case management and to hearing cases through online mode. In the prevailing practice, the present petitioner should also be allowed to use the laptop/i-pad with related devices in the jail premises. He would further submit that Rules 678, 684, 692, 693, 694 and 695 of the M.P./C.G. Prison Rules, 1968 provided permission for interview: time limit for interviews; rules regarding 9 interview with under trials; rules regarding interview with unconvicted prisoners and interview with legal advisers. He would further submit that the petitioner deserves to be permitted to have at least two calls of 45 minutes duration in every week with his lawyer for each case in addition to their physical meeting and further, he is entitled for two audio/video calls of 30 minutes duration in every week with his family members in addition to their physical meeting. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 03.03.2024, he is away from his family, including old- aged parents, wife and two minor daughters. Relying upon the order dated 20.04.2021 passed by the Bombay High Court in Suo-moto Public Interest Litigation No. 1 of 2021 (High Court on its own motion v. State of Maharashtra and others), he would submit that the petitioner may be allowed to contact his family members twice a week through audio/video conferencing. He would also submit that the petitioner may also be permitted to meet his lawyer in the jail premises in a separate chamber so that they may discuss the legal strategy for the pending cases against the petitioner, as their discussions are privileged. He would further submit that it would not be possible to carry the entire part of the challan with him in the meeting with his lawyer and to discuss it across the glass window, therefore, instead of keeping the prayer at the discretion of the Jail Authorities, the learned trial Court should have granted the reliefs as claimed by the petitioner and by setting 10 aside the impugned order dated 31.08.2024, the relief, as claimed, may be granted to him. In support of his submissions, he would rely upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration” AIR 1978 SC 1675, People’s Union of Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473, Neelesh Jain v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 Criminal Law Journal 2151. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ED vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the investigation conducted by the ED revealed that the present petitioner had full knowledge of the origin of the proceeds of crime and yet he participated in these money laundering. He with the association of co-accused Sourabh Chandrakar, Harishankar Tibrewal and others had laundered these proceeds of crime by using multiple companies operating both in India and abroad. The petitioner willingly acted as the shareholder and director in such entities employed in laundering the proceeds of crime originating out of betting operations. The investigation further revealed that the cash has been injected in the various companies either directly or indirectly for investing it in the stock market and they converted the cash to the bank entries. The present petitioner has also assisted the co-accused Harishankar Tibrewal in layering the illegal betting funds originating out of sky exchange and enjoyed the proceeds of crime which emanated from illegal operation of Mahadev Online Book. 11 He would further submit that the learned Special Court (PMLA) Raipur vide its order dated 31.08.2024 has already directed Jail Authorities to provide the required documents, electronic gadgets and meeting with the family members as well as his lawyer as per the jail manual and the claim of the petitioner is against the provisions of jail manual. The Jail Authorities are already allowing the meeting with his family members and lawyers as per the provisions of jail manual and also providing him the required gadgets as per the jail manual. No special treatment can be provided to the petitioner which is against the jail manual. He would rely upon the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 2108 of 2020, C.M. Application No. 7418 of 2021 (Jai A. Dehadrai v. Government of NCT of Delhi). By further relying upon another judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the order dated 11.03.2024 passed in Bail Application No. 795 of 2024 (Amanatullah Khan v. Directorate of Enforcement) submits that the prayer of the petitioner is contrary to the jail manual, and therefore, the same cannot be granted to the petitioner and he also cannot claim any special treatment. He would further submit that the petitioner definitely has the right to life and liberty as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but it does not give the right for special treatment in jail. It is also the fact that everyone should be treated equally and no special treatment should be given to any person in the eyes of rule of law. Therefore, the petition does not have any merits and is liable to be dismissed. 12 5. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. The M.P./C.G. Prison Rules, 1968 stipulates certain provisions for interview of the prisoner with his family members and legal advisor and those rules are given herein below: “नि(cid:2)यम 678. कोई भी बंदी "अधी्ቌक/उप अधी्ቌक/सहायक अधी्ቌक ds vuqKk के नि(cid:23)(cid:2)ा सा्ቌात्कार कर(cid:2)े के लि(cid:27)ए अ(cid:2)ु्ሺात (cid:2)हीं निकया जाएगा (No prisoner to be allowed interview without Superintendent/ Deputy Superintendent Assistant Superintendent permission) (1) नि(cid:23)चाराधी(cid:2) सिस्ቍदोष vkSj flfoy बंदी की उसकी परिर(cid:23)ार के सदस्यों, निम्ቔों, रिरश्तेदारों, नि(cid:23)धिधक स(cid:27)ाहकारों और ln~Hkkoh lnL;ksa के साथ सा्ቌात्कार के लि(cid:27)ए ऐसे समय पर तथा ऐसे नि(cid:2)बंध(cid:2)ों के अध्यधी(cid:2) रहते हुए lE;d उपबंध निकए जाएंगे, जैसा निक अधी्ቌक/उप अधी्ቌक/सहायक अधी्ቌक ्ቛारा fofuf’pr निकया जाए। ऐसे बंदी का सा्ቌात्कार उसके स ्ቓा(cid:23)ी नि(cid:23)धिधक स(cid:27)ाहकार के साथ fdUrq izHkkjh बंदी अधिधकारी की दृनि7 के साम(cid:2)े सु(cid:2)(cid:23)ाई के भीतर होगा। नि(cid:2)यम 681. भेंट का स्था(cid:2) (Place of interviews) ्ቚत्येक भेंट जे(cid:27) के निकसी ऐसे नि(cid:23)शेष स्था(cid:2) पर की जायगी जो इस ्ቚयोज(cid:2) के लि(cid:27)ए नि(cid:2)यत निकया जाए और यनिद संभ(cid:23) हो तो ऐसा स्था(cid:2) मुख्य ्ቛार पर या उसके नि(cid:2)कट ही हो। परन्तु मनिह(cid:27)ा कै निदयों से भेंट, यनिद संभ(cid:23) हो, तो मनिह(cid:27)ाओं के अहाते में ही की जाएगी। परन्तु यह भी, की यनिद कोई कै दी गंभीर रूप से बीमार हो, तो अधी्ቌक/उप अधी्ቌक/सहायक अधी्ቌक धिचनिकत्सा(cid:27)य में ही उससे भेंट कर(cid:2)े के लि(cid:27)ए अ(cid:2)ु्ሺात कर सकें गे तथा मृत्युदण्ड के दण्ड से दቄኌण्डत कै दी से भेंट साधारणतः उसकी कोठरी में ही की जाएगी। परन्तु यह और भी निक अधी्ቌक/उप अधी्ቌक/सहायक अधी्ቌक, अभिभलि(cid:27)लिIत निकये जा(cid:2)े (cid:23)ा(cid:27)े नि(cid:23)शेष कारणों से जे(cid:27) के निकसी भी भाग में भेंट निकया जा(cid:2)ा अ(cid:2)ु्ሺात कर सके गा। नि(cid:2)यम 682. दቄኌण्डत कै निदयों से जे(cid:27) अधिधकारी की उपቄኌस्थधित में ही भेंट की जाएगी (Interviews with convicted prisoners to take place in the presence of jail Officer)- दቄኌण्डत कै दी के 13 साथ की जा(cid:2)े (cid:23)ा(cid:27)े ्ቚत्येक भेंट जे(cid:27) अधिधकारी की उपቄኌस्थधित में की जाएगी जो इस बात के लि(cid:27)ए उ्ቈरदायी होगा निक कोई अनि(cid:2)यनिमतता (cid:2) हो और जो ऐसे स्था(cid:2) पर रहेगा जहां से निक (cid:23)ह यह देI सु(cid:2) सकें निक क्या हो रहा है और दो(cid:2)ों प्ቌों के बीच निकसी (cid:23)स्तु के आदा(cid:2)- ्ቚदा(cid:2) को रोक सकें । भेंट के लि(cid:27)ए समय सीमा (Time limit for नि(cid:2)यम 684. interviews)- HksaV ds लि(cid:27)ए अ(cid:2)ु्ሺात समय साधारणतः 20 निम(cid:2)ट से अधिधक (cid:2)हीं होगा निकन्तु v/kh{kd@mi&अधी्ቌक@सहायक अधी्ቌक ्ቛारा स्(cid:23)नि(cid:23)(cid:23)ेका(cid:2)ुसार बढ़ाया जा सके गा। B- SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO UNDERTRIAL AND CIVIL PRISONERS नि(cid:2)यम 692. सिसनि(cid:23)(cid:27) तथा नि(cid:23)चाराधी(cid:2) कै निदयों से भेंट कर(cid:2)े संबंधी (Rules regarding interview with civil and नि(cid:2)या undertrial prisoners) असिस्ቍदो दाቄኌण्डक कै निदयों तथा निमनिN कै निदयों को अप(cid:2)े रिरश्तेदारों, निम्ቔों और नि(cid:23)धिध स(cid:27)ाहकारों से में कर(cid:2)े या अन्यथा रूप से मौलिIक या लि(cid:27)लिIत में प्ቔ-व्य(cid:23)हार कर(cid:2)े के लि(cid:27)ए उधिचत समयों तथा उधिचत नि(cid:2)(cid:23)Qन्धों के अधी(cid:2) राहते हुए समस्त युनिNयुN सुनि(cid:23)धाए मंजूर को जयेगी (अधी्ቌक/mi&अधी्ቌक सहायक अधी्ቌक), नि(cid:23)षम 695 में उपबंधिधत ቄኌस्थधित के सिस(cid:23)ाय असिस्ቍदोष कै दी ds भेजे गये या उसके ्ቛारा भेजे जा(cid:2)े (cid:23)ा(cid:27)े तथा flfoy कै दी }kjk भेजे जा(cid:2)े (cid:23)ा(cid:27)े निकसी भी प्ቔ dks Iो(cid:27) सके गा और उसकी परी्ቌा कर सके गा तथा ऐसे निकसी भी प्ቔ जी निक उसे vkifRrtud ्ቚतीत हो तब तक रोक सके गा जब तक की dSnh छोड़े जा(cid:2)े का हकदार (cid:2)हीं हो जाता यनिद dSnh जे(cid:27) में दुराचरण का दोषी हो, तो अधी्ቌक/उप अधी्ቌक सहायक अधी्ቌक) ऐसे i=ksa rFkk भेंटों को सिज(cid:2)का नि(cid:23)धिधक कायQ(cid:23)ाही से संबंध हो अस्(cid:23)ीकृ त कर सके गा। नि(cid:2)यम 693, असिस्ቍदोष कै निदयों से भेंट कर(cid:2)े संबंधी नि(cid:2)यम (Rules regarding interview with unconvicted prisoners) असिस्ቍदोष कै दी तथा नि(cid:23)धिधक स(cid:27)ाहकार ds बीच को ्ቚत्येक भेंट ,sls स्था(cid:2) पर होगी, जो निदIाई तो दे निकन्तु जहां से कु छ सु(cid:2)ाई (cid:2) ns असिस्ቍदोष कै दों के निकसी भी नि(cid:2)कट के रिरश्तेदार से भेंट के माम(cid:27)े में भी अधी्ቌक/उप अधी्ቌक सहायक अधी्ቌक ्ቛारा समा(cid:2) fj;k;r अ(cid:2)ु्ሺात की जा सके गी। नि(cid:2)यम 694, नि(cid:23)धिधक स(cid:27)ाहकार से भेंट (Legal advisers interview) कोई व्यनिN असिस्ቍदोष दाቄኌण्डक कै दी से कै दी के नि(cid:23)धिधक स(cid:27)ाहकार की हैसिसयत से भेंट dks चाहे तो यह लि(cid:27)लिIत में उसका (cid:2)ाम तथा पता देते हुए और यह कथ(cid:2) करते हुए निक यह fdl व्य(cid:23)साय की निकस शाIा से संबंधिधत है, आ(cid:23)ेद(cid:2) करेगा तथा 14 अधी्ቌक/उप अधी्ቌक/lgk;d अधी्ቌक का इस बात से समाधा(cid:2) करेगा निक (cid:23)ह उस कै दी का सिजससे निक (cid:23)ह भेंट djuk चाहता है, स ्ቓानि(cid:23)क नि(cid:23)धिधक स(cid:27)ाहकार है और यह निक उसका उससे उधिचत कायQ है। नि(cid:2)यम 695. नि(cid:23)धिधक स(cid:27)ाहकार को संसूच(cid:2)ा परिरद्ቈ की tkus (Communication to be delivered to the legal adviser) असिस्ቍदोष दाቄኌण्डक ्ቛारा तैयार की गई कोई भी स्ቓानि(cid:23)क गोप(cid:2)ीय लि(cid:27)लिIत संसूच(cid:2)ा जो उसके नि(cid:23)धिधक स(cid:27)ाह को अ(cid:2)ुदेशों के रूप में हो अधी्ቌक/उप अधी्ቌक/सहायक अधी्ቌक ्ቛारा उसको परी्ቌा निकए निब(cid:2)ा ऐसे नि(cid:23)धिधक स(cid:27)ाहकार को O;fDr’k% परिरद्ቈ की जा सके गी। इस fu;e ्ቚयोज(cid:2) के लि(cid:27)ए अभिभव्यनिN नि(cid:23)धिधक स(cid:27)ाहकार से अभिभ्ቚेत है, एड(cid:23)ोके ट्स एक्ट (्ቅमांक 25 स(cid:2)् 1961 के ) अथQ के अन्तगQत कोई नि(cid:23)धिधक व्य(cid:23)सायी।” 7. When the rules provide certain restrictions for meeting with the prisoner with his family members and lawyer, the Jail Authorities are bound to comply with the provisions and one cannot be permitted to provide additional facilities against the rules. The claim of the petitioner appears to be inappropriate for the reason that he is claiming two calls of 45 minutes duration every week with his lawyer for each case by virtual mode in addition to present physical mode, two audio/video calls of 30 minutes duration every week with his family members in addition to present physical mode, to provide a separate room to meet with his lawyer/legal advisor to discuss the legal strategy with respect to the pending cases and also to meet his family members physically and further claimed that he should be provided a laptop, which is not provided in the aforesaid prison rules. When the rules do not provide for special treatment, he cannot claim as a matter of right for the facilities during his detention in jail. 8. In the matter of “Amanatullah Khan” (supra), the Delhi High Court has held in Para 77 of its order that : 15 “77. Undoubtedly, every such person as any other citizen of India is entitled to the protection of law, however, the law will also equally apply to him, subject to any privilege if at all, in a case applicable to him. Needless to say, the protection as per law which is available to all citizens is also available to such members and public figures. Their standing in lives or being an elected representative of the people does not create a class or elite class entitling them to different treatment being extended under the same law.” 9. The learned trial Court has already directed the Jail Authorities to provide the facilities as per his entitlement under the jail manual, which cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. From the statement made by the respondent/ED, it also comes on record that the Jail Authorities are already allowing the meeting with his family members and lawyer as per the jail manual. They also providing him the required gadgets as per the jail manual and his physical presence was allowed during every hearing of the case. 10. The facts and circumstances of the cases in the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are different than the facts and circumstances of the present case, as in the present case the petitioner is claiming special facilities against the provisions of jail manual/prison rules, which cannot be provided especially to the petitioner against the jail manual. Further, the Asgar Yusuf Mukadam’s case (supra) relates to grant of basic needs to the person to be detained in custody, but here, the petitioner is claiming special facility of providing electronic gadgets, including all other 16 related components, therefore, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner by the same. 11. For the foregoing reasons and also in view of the order passed by the Delhi High Court in “Amanatullah Khan” (supra), I do not find any ground to allow the petition and to direct the Jail Authorities to provide the facilities as claimed by the petitioner in his application filed before the learned trial Court on 14.08.2024. 12. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge