AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion addresses an application for relaxation of condition no. (f) stipulated in the operative part of an order dated 6th June 2018 passed by this Court in Bail Application No.286 of 2018. The applicant was granted bail in Special PMLA Case No.2 of 2016 pending before the Special PMLA Court, Mumbai, subject to several conditions including executing a PR bond, surrendering his passport, and restrictions on travel without prior permission. The applicant, a former Member of Parliament and senior party member, sought relaxation of the travel restriction condition to attend to political and personal matters, including matters related to property attachments by the Enforcement Directorate. The respondent, Union of India, opposed the application citing ongoing investigation and proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2012.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether condition no. (f) of the bail order, restricting the applicant’s travel beyond the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court without prior permission, can be relaxed.
  2. The scope and extent of travel permissible to a bail applicant under the conditions imposed by the Court in a PMLA case.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

  • The applicant has complied with all conditions of the bail order including surrender of passport.
  • He has sought and obtained permission to travel beyond the jurisdiction on several occasions.
  • As a former MP and senior political figure, he needs to travel regularly to his erstwhile constituency and to Delhi to perform political and social duties.
  • He is a member of an organization working for upliftment of oppressed sections, necessitating attendance at meetings and public gatherings.
  • The applicant was in custody for 26 months and the Enforcement Directorate has attached various properties, with adjudicating authorities located in New Delhi, requiring his travel there.
  • There is no apprehension of absconding as he has complied with bail conditions.
  • Similar conditions were relaxed for co-accused by the Court in an earlier order dated 4th September 2018.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The complaint is under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2012, and proceedings are pending before the Special PMLA Court, Mumbai.
  • The investigation is ongoing, implying the necessity of maintaining bail conditions to ensure the integrity of the process.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the applicant has complied with all bail conditions, including surrendering his passport and abiding by travel restrictions imposed by the bail order. The Court observed that the applicant had been permitted to travel outside the Court’s jurisdiction on multiple occasions without any reported breach or tampering of evidence. The Court recognized the applicant’s political and social responsibilities necessitating travel, as well as the practical need to attend to matters related to property attachments by the Enforcement Directorate in New Delhi. Balancing these factors and the absence of any complaint of violation, the Court found it appropriate to relax condition no. (f) of the bail order, while clarifying that this relaxation does not permit travel beyond India.

Holding and Implications

The Court relaxed condition no. (f) of the bail order dated 6th June 2018, allowing the applicant to travel beyond the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court subject to the conditions outlined.

This decision directly affects the applicant by permitting travel necessary for his political, social, and legal obligations without compromising the bail conditions. No new legal precedent was established as the ruling is limited to the facts and compliance of the applicant in this case.

    sameer magan bhujbal v. assistant director, directorate of enforcement ors

    1. This is an application for relaxation of condition no. (f) stipulated in the operative part of order dated 6 th June 2018 passed by this Court in Bail Application No.286 of 2018.

    2. The applicant was directed to be released on bail in Special PMLA Case No.2 of 2016 pending before the Special PMLA Court, Mumbai on his executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one or two solvent local sureties in the like amount. The applicant was also directed to remain present before the Special PMLA Court, Mumbai on the fixed dates without fail unless and until prevented for medical reason. Applicant was directed to surrender his passport with the investigating agency, if not already surrendered and the applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay at Mumbai without obtaining the prior permission of trial Court.

    3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 6th June 2018, the applicant has complied all conditions. It is submitted that the applicant had sought permission for travel beyond the jurisdiction of this Court on several occasions and the applications were allowed. It is submitted that the applicant being former member of parliament from Nashik constituency and a senior member in the National Executive Committee of Nationalist Congress Party, required to visit the erstwhile constituency regularly and take up issues with the higher government in Delhi, in order to discharge his duties. He is member of Akhil Bhartiya Mahatma Phule Samta Parishad which organisation aims towards upliftment and growth of certain oppressed sections of the society. The applicant has to attend the meeting and public gatherings of the said organization. The applicant was in custody for 26 months and in the meantime Enforcement Directorate has attached various properties of applicant. The adjudicating Authority as well as Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate upon the attachment are situated at New Delhi. He is required to travel to Delhi. It is submitted that the applicant has abided all the conditions, one of which is the surrender his passport with Investigating Agency. Hence, there is no apprehension that the applicant shall abscond or flee the Country. The applicant being National Congress Delegate, has to travel on short notice. It is submitted that the similar conditions were also imposed against co-accused and this Court vide order dated 4th September 2018 had relaxed such conditions.

    4. Learned counsel for respondent-Union of India submitted that the complaint has been filed under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2012 and proceedings are pending before the Special PMLA Court, Mumbai and further investigation is still going on.

    5. It is noted that pursuant to grant of bail, the applicant has been permitted to leave jurisdiction of this Court be trial Court on several occasions vide order dated 24th August 2018, 16th October 2018, 12th November 2018, 30th November 2018, 14th December 2018, 22nd January 2019. The applicant was permitted to travel to Delhi from 27.8.2018 to 29.8.2018 UAE and UK, from 8.11.2018 to 21.11.2018 Delhi, from 12.11.2018 to 14.11.2018 and 3.12.2018 to 5.12.2018, 16.12.2018 to 20.12.2018, 29.1.2019 to 31.01.2019. The applicant has surrendered his passport with Investigating Agency. The order granting bail imposes other conditions. It is not reported that while the applicant was granted permission to travel, he has tampered with evidence. It is made clear that by this order this Court has not permitted the applicant to travel beyond India. The applicant has apparently complied with all conditions and there is no complaint of breach of any condition.

    6. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, condition no.(f) can be relaxed. Hence I pass following order;

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    sameer magan bhujbal v. assistant director, directorate of enforcement ors
    (Feb 1, 2019)