E.D v. Pankaj Saxena & others

Applicant :- Pankaj Saxena Opposite Party :- Deputy Director Directorate Of Enforcement (Pmla Act) Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kuldeep Srivastava Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Samarth, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for Enforcement Directorate (E.D.).

2. By means of this application filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S./482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for following relief: "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order of 82 Cr.P.C. (Proclamation) dated 13.01.2025 and first bailable warrant order dated 19.10.2019 passed by ths learned A.D.J./Special Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I. (West), Lucknow against the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Case No.940 of 2018, Complaint Case No.14 of 2019, FIR/ECIF/LKZO/09/2014, U/S 3/4 PMLA Act, Police Station Enforcement Directorate, District Lucknow titled as "E.D. vs. Pankaj Saxena & others."

3. Sri Sharma has submitted that the present applicant is not disputing the fact that the proceeding in Criminal Misc. Case No.940 of 2018, Complaint Case No.14 of 2019 (supra) is pending consideration before the Special Judge but for reason that the present applicant was availing alternative statutory remedy therefore he could not appear before the learned trial court. Learned counsel has further submitted that before advancing any argument on the merit of the case, the present applicant undertakes that he shall participate in the aforesaid proceeding and shall not take any unnecessary adjournment. Further, on account of his non-appearance before the learned trial court concerned, the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant on 13.01.2025.

4. Sri Sharma has stated that after taking all statutory remedies challenging the aforesaid proceeding, the applicant lastly filed an anticipatory bail application bearing Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Baill Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.373 of 2025, which has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.04.2025 for the reason that since the applicant has not been arrested during investigation and he should not be arrested after filing of the charge-sheet in the light of dictim of Apex Court in re: Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office 2024 7 SCC 61, therefore, this Court has observed that the present applicant is having no apprehension of arrest so anticipatory bail application is misconceived.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention of this Court towards the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 whereby proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued wherein non-cooperation of the present applicant as well as of Sachin Malhotra, Rakha Upadhayay and Sameer Joshi has been indicated and such process has been issued against all the aforesaid persons.

6. Thereafter, Sri Sharma has drawn attention of this Court towards order dated 24.01.2025 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 No.654 of 2025; Rekha Upadhayay vs. Deputy Director of Enforcement (Pmla) Lko, whereby this Court directed the co-accused Rekha Upadhayay to appear before the learned trial court within a period of three weeks or on the date fixed, whichever is earlier, and may file appropriate application for bail etc. and if such application is filed before the learned trial court, the same shall be considered and disposed of with expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, strictly in accordance with law and the observation made in that order. For convenience, the order dated 24.01.2025 reads as under: "1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate.

2. By means of this application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant has prayed the following main relief: "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this application preferred under Section 528 BNSS/ 482 CrPC may kindly be allowed and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 14/2019, arising out of ECIR No.ECIR/LKZO/09/2014, u/s 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, P.S., Enforcement Directorate, District Lucknow, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, PMLA/ Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, C.B.I (West), Lucknow, may kindly be quashed in respect of the applicant in the interest of justice."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has informed that during the investigation, the present applicant co-operated in the investigation and she has not been arrested. Now, the charge sheet has been filed in the case and learned Trial Court has issued summoning order against the the applicant, therefore, her liberty may be protected. He has also submitted that in the present case, the applicant and her husband both are the accused and her husband has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 CrPC No. 2514 of 2024 (Prem Shankar Upadhayay vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, though her two anticipatory bail applications have been rejected by this Court. The present applicant is ready to co-operate in the proceedings.

4. Per contra, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the E.D. has submitted that the present applicant has approached this Court time and again to get the anticipatory bail but those applications have been rejected. First anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 CrPC No. 1314 of 2023 (Rekha Upadhayay vs. Union of India, through Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and second anticipatory bail application was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 CrPC No. 2722 of 2024 (Rekha Upadhayay vs. Deputy Directorate of Enforcement, Prevenjtion of Money Laundering Act, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in view of the given facts and circumstances, the present applicant is entitled for the benefit of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 INSC 434, in Criminal Appeal No. 2608 of 2024 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 121 of 2024).

6. Be that as it may, since the present applicant has given her undertaking that she shall co-operate in the proceedings, therefore, her aforesaid undertaking may be believed. Besides, her husband has been granted anticipatory bail application and he is co- operating in the proceedings. Since she has not been arrested during investigation, therefore, she may be granted the benefit of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Tarsem Lal (supra) taking specific plea to that effect before the learned Trial Court concerned and the judgment of Tarsem Lal (supra) being the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court must be considered by the learned Trial Court in its letter and spirit and if the learned Trial Court finds that the benefit of the judgment of Tarsem Lal (supra) may be given to the applicant, it may take appropriate surety and bond as per its satisfaction.

7. This would be absolutely up to the discretion of the learned Trial Court concerned inasmuch as I have not adjudicated or dealt with the merits of the issue.

8. Therefore, the present applicant is directed to appear/ surrender before the learned Trial Court concerned within a period of 3 weeks or on the date fixed, whichever is earlier, and may file appropriate application for bail etc. and if such application is filed before the learned Trial Court, the same shall be considered and disposed of with expedition, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, strictly in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove.

9. This application is disposed of finally in view of the aforesaid terms."

7. The aforesaid order has been passed considering the dictum of Apex Court in re: Tarsem Lal (supra). Further attention has been drawn towards the order dated 08.02.2025 passed by learned trial court in a case of Rekha Upadhayay granting her bail in the light of the dictum of Apex Court in re: Tarsem Lal (supra) on 06.02.2025.

8. Sri Sharma has stated that the case of the present applicant is identical and similar with co-accused Rekha Upadhayay, whose application has been disposed of by this Court by the positive direction and considering those direction of this Court, learned trial court vide order dated 06.02.2025 granted bail to Rekha Upadhaya. Therefore, the present applicant may also be granted similar benefit and he undertakes that he shall cooperate in the trial proceeding and shall not take any unnecessary adjournment.

9. Learned counsel for the enforcement directorate has opposed the aforesaid submission of Sri Sharma by submitting that the present applicant and other co-accused persons have been adopted delaying tactic and they deliberately and intentionally avoided the trial proceeding, therefore if any benefit is given to the present applicant, strict conditions may be imposed.

10. Be that as it may, since the present applicant has not been arrested during the investigation and chargesheet has been filed therefore as to whether his arrest would be warranted, the same fact may be considered in the light of dictum of Apex Court in Tarsem Lal (supra). Besides the present applicant is giving his undertaking that he shall cooperate in the trial proceeding and shall not flout any condition of the learned trial court, therefore, I find it appropriate that the present application may be disposed of finally in terms of the order passed by this Court in re: Rekha Upadhayay (supra).

11. Since, I have not appreciated the merits of the case, therefore, it is absolutely up to the discretion of the learned trial court to deal the merits of the issue.

12. Therefore, in view of the above the present applicant is directed to appear/surrender before the learned trial court concerned within a period of two weeks from today or on the date fixed, whichever is earlier, and may file application for bail etc., if such application is filed before the trial court, the same shall be considered and disposed of with expedition, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, strictly in accordance with law and the observations made herein above.

13. This application is disposed of finally in view of the aforesaid. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Pankaj Saxena Opposite Party :- Deputy Director Directorate Of Enforcement (Pmla Act) Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kuldeep Srivastava Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Samarth, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for Enforcement Directorate (E.D.).

2. By means of this application filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S./482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for following relief: "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order of 82 Cr.P.C. (Proclamation) dated 13.01.2025 and first bailable warrant order dated 19.10.2019 passed by ths learned A.D.J./Special Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I. (West), Lucknow against the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Case No.940 of 2018, Complaint Case No.14 of 2019, FIR/ECIF/LKZO/09/2014, U/S 3/4 PMLA Act, Police Station Enforcement Directorate, District Lucknow titled as "E.D. vs. Pankaj Saxena & others."

3. Sri Sharma has submitted that the present applicant is not disputing the fact that the proceeding in Criminal Misc. Case No.940 of 2018, Complaint Case No.14 of 2019 (supra) is pending consideration before the Special Judge but for reason that the present applicant was availing alternative statutory remedy therefore he could not appear before the learned trial court. Learned counsel has further submitted that before advancing any argument on the merit of the case, the present applicant undertakes that he shall participate in the aforesaid proceeding and shall not take any unnecessary adjournment. Further, on account of his non-appearance before the learned trial court concerned, the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant on 13.01.2025.

4. Sri Sharma has stated that after taking all statutory remedies challenging the aforesaid proceeding, the applicant lastly filed an anticipatory bail application bearing Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Baill Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.373 of 2025, which has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.04.2025 for the reason that since the applicant has not been arrested during investigation and he should not be arrested after filing of the charge-sheet in the light of dictim of Apex Court in re: Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office 2024 7 SCC 61, therefore, this Court has observed that the present applicant is having no apprehension of arrest so anticipatory bail application is misconceived.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention of this Court towards the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 whereby proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued wherein non-cooperation of the present applicant as well as of Sachin Malhotra, Rakha Upadhayay and Sameer Joshi has been indicated and such process has been issued against all the aforesaid persons.

6. Thereafter, Sri Sharma has drawn attention of this Court towards order dated 24.01.2025 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 No.654 of 2025; Rekha Upadhayay vs. Deputy Director of Enforcement (Pmla) Lko, whereby this Court directed the co-accused Rekha Upadhayay to appear before the learned trial court within a period of three weeks or on the date fixed, whichever is earlier, and may file appropriate application for bail etc. and if such application is filed before the learned trial court, the same shall be considered and disposed of with expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, strictly in accordance with law and the observation made in that order. For convenience, the order dated 24.01.2025 reads as under: "1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate.

2. By means of this application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant has prayed the following main relief: "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this application preferred under Section 528 BNSS/ 482 CrPC may kindly be allowed and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 14/2019, arising out of ECIR No.ECIR/LKZO/09/2014, u/s 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, P.S., Enforcement Directorate, District Lucknow, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, PMLA/ Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, C.B.I (West), Lucknow, may kindly be quashed in respect of the applicant in the interest of justice."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has informed that during the investigation, the present applicant co-operated in the investigation and she has not been arrested. Now, the charge sheet has been filed in the case and learned Trial Court has issued summoning order against the the applicant, therefore, her liberty may be protected. He has also submitted that in the present case, the applicant and her husband both are the accused and her husband has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 CrPC No. 2514 of 2024 (Prem Shankar Upadhayay vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, though her two anticipatory bail applications have been rejected by this Court. The present applicant is ready to co-operate in the proceedings.

4. Per contra, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the E.D. has submitted that the present applicant has approached this Court time and again to get the anticipatory bail but those applications have been rejected. First anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 CrPC No. 1314 of 2023 (Rekha Upadhayay vs. Union of India, through Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and second anticipatory bail application was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 CrPC No. 2722 of 2024 (Rekha Upadhayay vs. Deputy Directorate of Enforcement, Prevenjtion of Money Laundering Act, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in view of the given facts and circumstances, the present applicant is entitled for the benefit of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 INSC 434, in Criminal Appeal No. 2608 of 2024 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 121 of 2024).

6. Be that as it may, since the present applicant has given her undertaking that she shall co-operate in the proceedings, therefore, her aforesaid undertaking may be believed. Besides, her husband has been granted anticipatory bail application and he is co- operating in the proceedings. Since she has not been arrested during investigation, therefore, she may be granted the benefit of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Tarsem Lal (supra) taking specific plea to that effect before the learned Trial Court concerned and the judgment of Tarsem Lal (supra) being the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court must be considered by the learned Trial Court in its letter and spirit and if the learned Trial Court finds that the benefit of the judgment of Tarsem Lal (supra) may be given to the applicant, it may take appropriate surety and bond as per its satisfaction.

7. This would be absolutely up to the discretion of the learned Trial Court concerned inasmuch as I have not adjudicated or dealt with the merits of the issue.

8. Therefore, the present applicant is directed to appear/ surrender before the learned Trial Court concerned within a period of 3 weeks or on the date fixed, whichever is earlier, and may file appropriate application for bail etc. and if such application is filed before the learned Trial Court, the same shall be considered and disposed of with expedition, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, strictly in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove.

9. This application is disposed of finally in view of the aforesaid terms."

7. The aforesaid order has been passed considering the dictum of Apex Court in re: Tarsem Lal (supra). Further attention has been drawn towards the order dated 08.02.2025 passed by learned trial court in a case of Rekha Upadhayay granting her bail in the light of the dictum of Apex Court in re: Tarsem Lal (supra) on 06.02.2025.

8. Sri Sharma has stated that the case of the present applicant is identical and similar with co-accused Rekha Upadhayay, whose application has been disposed of by this Court by the positive direction and considering those direction of this Court, learned trial court vide order dated 06.02.2025 granted bail to Rekha Upadhaya. Therefore, the present applicant may also be granted similar benefit and he undertakes that he shall cooperate in the trial proceeding and shall not take any unnecessary adjournment.

9. Learned counsel for the enforcement directorate has opposed the aforesaid submission of Sri Sharma by submitting that the present applicant and other co-accused persons have been adopted delaying tactic and they deliberately and intentionally avoided the trial proceeding, therefore if any benefit is given to the present applicant, strict conditions may be imposed.

10. Be that as it may, since the present applicant has not been arrested during the investigation and chargesheet has been filed therefore as to whether his arrest would be warranted, the same fact may be considered in the light of dictum of Apex Court in Tarsem Lal (supra). Besides the present applicant is giving his undertaking that he shall cooperate in the trial proceeding and shall not flout any condition of the learned trial court, therefore, I find it appropriate that the present application may be disposed of finally in terms of the order passed by this Court in re: Rekha Upadhayay (supra).

11. Since, I have not appreciated the merits of the case, therefore, it is absolutely up to the discretion of the learned trial court to deal the merits of the issue.

12. Therefore, in view of the above the present applicant is directed to appear/surrender before the learned trial court concerned within a period of two weeks from today or on the date fixed, whichever is earlier, and may file application for bail etc., if such application is filed before the trial court, the same shall be considered and disposed of with expedition, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, strictly in accordance with law and the observations made herein above.

13. This application is disposed of finally in view of the aforesaid. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench