Rajwant Kaur v. Niranjan Singh

CRM-M-16957-2017 -1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16957-2017 Date of Decision: July 10, 2017 Rajwant Kaur alias Rajwant Virk .....Petitioner

Versus

Niranjan Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

3.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......

Present:

Ms.G.K.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Ranjana Shahi, Advocate for the respondent-ED.

........

SURYA KANT, J.

The petitioner is in custody in Complaint case No.2 of 2015 titled as 'Niranjan Singh Asstt. Director of Enforcement vs Ranjit Singh Kandola alia Raja Kandola and others' under Section 45(1) read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering (PML) Act, 2002. [2] In this second petition, the petitioner seeks enlargement on regular bail. Her first application was dismissed by this Court for the detailed reasons assigned in the order dated October 07, 2016 (Annexure P16). It is not necessary to repeat the allegations made against the petitioner or the details of immovable or moveable properties said to have been Meenu 2017.07.12 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh acquired by her through the proceeds of the crime. Suffice to mention that

CRM-M-16957-2017 -2there is no change in the circumstances except that meanwhile the petitioner has undergone custody of about 14 months.

[3] The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, is present in Court. He states that out of 20 witnesses cited against the petitioner, 4 have already been examined. He undertakes that the left out witnesses would be produced subject to the limit, if any, fixed by the learned Special Court and that no adjournment shall be taken by the Enforcement Directorate to delay the trial. We find from the list of witnesses that some of the left out witnesses are formal in nature. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances it appears that the complaint trial can be concluded within a period of three months provided that there is full cooperation from the petitioner's side also.

[4] The instant writ petition is, thus, dismissed at this stage, though with liberty to the petitioner to again approach this Court if the trial is not concluded by 13.10.2017.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE July 10, 2017 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No Meenu 2017.07.12 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh