Patna High CourtCR. MISC./33289/2017rejected

Mantu Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadav v. The Union Of India Represented Through The Assistant Director, Directorate Of Enforcement Preventio

2017-10-06Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33289 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2 Year- 2015 Thana -GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Mantu Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadav, S/o Sri Bhudneshwar Yadav, resident of Mohalla- Chiraiyatar, P.S. Rampur, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The Union of India Represented through the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement (prevention of Money Laundering Act), Govt. of India, 1st Floor Chandpura Place, Bank Road, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna800001(Bihar). .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhaskar Shankar Mr. Rakesh Singh Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.D Sanjay (Addl. Soc. Gen.) Mr. Anshuman Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 06-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Special Trial (P.M.L. Act) No. 02 of 2015 arising out of ECIR No. 01/PAT/2013 corresponding to Complaint Case No. 02 of 2015 registered under Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Submission is that petitioner is an agriculturist. He is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Further submission is that petitioner has already filed the income tax

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33289 of 2017 (7) dt.06-10-2017 2/2 returns.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that there is specific allegation of money laundering against the petitioner and he has criminal antecedent.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Shailendra/- U T