Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal filed against the decision of Rajasthan High Court whereby the High Court had refused to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant (Rajkumar Daitapati) for alleged offences under Section 3 read with Section of the ; the Division Bench of Sanjiv Khanna CJ., and Sanjay Kumar J., set aside the impugned order of the High Court and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant.
The High Court via the impugned order dated 11-11-2021 dismissed the appellant’s application for anticipatory bail opining that he was allegedly involved in serious economic offence.
The Supreme Court in the instant order dated 21-11-2024, took note that the appellant agreed to the deposit of a further sum of Rs 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) with the Reserve Bank of India within a period of three weeks. Therefore, Reserve Bank of India may permit the complainants and other depositors, to repatriate the said monies after complying with the formalities.
Based on the afore-stated statement and subject to compliance and deposit, the Court directed the appellant to comply with the provisions mentioned in Section 482(2) of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
[Rajkumar Daitapati v. Director Enforcement, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4692 OF 2024, decided on 21-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Appellant: Mr. Atmaram N S Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Jaskirat Pal Singh, Adv. Ms. Kritika, Adv. Ms. Deepti Arya, Adv. Ms. Manisha Gupta, Adv.
Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (NP) Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G.(NP) Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv.(NP) Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
The post appeared first on .