SC grants anticipatory bail to Jagannath Temple priest in property dispute

New Delhi, Nov 22 (Representative) The Supreme Court on Thursday granted anticipatory bail to Puri’s iconic Jagannath Temple priest Rajkumar Daitapati on allegations of money laundering related to the sale purchase of a private property by NRI. Daitapati is arrayed as a party in a case under the Prevention for Money Laundering Act 2002 in connection with an FIR registered by a few foreign nationals. The main FIR is against Kuldeep Sharma and his wife, Ms Aparna Sharma, for cheating and fraud to the tune of USD 232,568 in the sale of a certain property. The allegations against Daitapati are that he was given the Power of Attorney by the foreign nationals (complainants) to oversee the case and act as an intermediary to conclude settlements and receive monies on their behalf. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar granted anticipatory bail to the accused on the condition that he deposit an additional Rs 20 lakhs with interest with the RBI within three weeks. The money will then be remitted to the complainants after due compliance with the formalities, the bench directed. The bench said, “Appellant shall also be released on bail in the event of being arrested in connection with other cases registered by the Enforcement Directorate”. The bench noted that as per the agreement between the parties, the appellant was to receive Rs 92 Lakhs on behalf of the foreign nationals, but so far he had only deposited Rs 80 lakhs with the RBI.

Earlier on November 11, 2021, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. Senior Advocate Atmaram NS Nadkarni along with Advocate on Record (AOR) Salvador Santosh Rebello and Advocate Raghav Sharma appeared on behalf of the petitioner and argued that the alleged proceeds of crime have already been deposited with the ED on September 21, 2016 and June 29, 2017. The petitioner further said that he was neither “named as an accused in the original FIR nor was he subsequently arrayed in the proceedings after investigation.” The petition adds that the petitioner has been wrongly arrayed in the PMLA proceedings arising out of the FIR of 2010, which was already stayed in the High Court on October 3, 2013- 7 years before the Special Court took cognizance in its order on December 24, 2010, for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.

The petitioner pointed out that “since 2013, the original complainant(s)/foreign national(s) have not joined the investigation before any investigating agency and are untraceable for investigation”. Despite the same, and without affording any justification, the Enforcement Directorate preferred to initiate the instant proceedings without even recording the statement of the original Complainant(s)” The Apex court then set aside the order of the Rajasthan High Court and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. “We, however, clarify that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be considered as the expression of opinion on the merits of the case. “In addition, the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required,” the Court directed.