Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2025 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Uttarakhand/
  4. 2024/
  5. December

Ashwani Kumar vs. Directorate of Enforcement Government of India

Decided on 31 December 2024• Citation: ABA/1154/2024• High Court of Uttarakhand
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                   HIGH   COURT    OF  UTTARAKHAND        AT  NAINITAL              
                       Anticipatory Bail Application No.1154  of 2024               
                  Ashwani  Kumar                           ….....Applicant          
                                           Versus                                   
                  Directorate of Enforcement             ….….Respondent             
                  Present:-                                                         
                       Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the applicant.             
                       Ms.  Monika  Pant,  Advocate for the  Directorate of         
                       Enforcement.                                                 
                       Ms.  Shalini Kumari, Legal Consultant of Directorate of      
                       Enforcement.                                                 
                  Hon’ble  Ravindra   Maithani,  J. (Oral)                          
                            Applicant    seeks    anticipatory   bail   in          
                  ECIR/DNSZO/01/2021/1535       of 2021, Zone Chandigarh,           
                  Sub-Zone  Dehradun.                                               
                  2.        Heard   learned counsel  for the  parties and           
                  perused  the record.                                              
                  3.        Learned   counsel  for  the  applicant  would           
                  submit   that the  Enforcement   Directorate (“ED”) has           
                  already  filed a  complaint  against the  son  and  the           
                  daughter-in-law  of  the applicant;  the ED   has  been           
                  investigating the matter for the last three and a half years      
                  and   just  to  harass  the  applicant,  they  are  still         
                  investigating the matter; applicant apprehends his arrest.        
                  4.        Learned  counsel for the applicant would also           
                  submit   that the applicant  has  appeared  before the            

                                              2                                     
                  Enforcement  Directorate (“E.D.”) and has submitted the           
                  requisite documents.                                              
                  5.        Learned  counsel appearing for the E.D. would           
                  submit  that E.D. has issued summons   to the applicant           
                  requiring him  to produce certain documents, which  he            
                  has produced.                                                     
                  6.        On  it, learned counsel for the applicant would         
                  submit  that the reply is elusive. The E.D. had all the           
                  documents,  which were deposited by the applicant now.            
                  7.        When   requested  to explain it further, Ms.            
                  Shalini Kumari,  the Legal Consultant  for E.D., would            
                  submit   that there are  some  documents,   which  the            
                  applicant  did produce   now.  She  gave a  categorical           
                  statement  that at the moment,  E.D. has  no reason to            
                  believe that the applicant is wanted in the case.                 
                  8.        The   Court,  particularly, asked  from  the            
                  learned counsel for the E.D. as to whether the applicant          
                  is wanted  by the E.D. or not?  The  answer is that no            
                  summons    have been issued to him  after this. He had            
                  come   against notices issued to him  in the month   of           
                  November,   2024,  requiring him   to produce   certain           
                  documents,  which  he has  already produced.  Further,            
                  no summons   have been issued.                                    

                                              3                                     
                  9.        The  Court  takes  on  record the  statement            
                  given on behalf of the E.D.                                       
                  10.       In view of the statement given on behalf of the         
                  E.D.,  nothing   survives  in  this  anticipatory  bail           
                  application. It stands disposed of accordingly.                   
                                                   (Ravindra Maithani, J)           
                                                           31.12.2024               
                  Ravi