2019 (11) TMI 1781 - HC - Indian Laws

Accused granted anticipatory bail in money laundering case despite opposition. Surrender within two weeks.

The court granted anticipatory bail to the accused petitioners under Sections 438 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. in a case involving offenses under the Prevention ... Availability of anticipatory bail after issuance of non-bailable/arrester warrants - parity and consistency in grant of anticipatory bail based on co-ordinate bench order - absence of requirement for interrogation as a factor in granting anticipatory bail - remedy of seeking regular bail from the trial court where arrest warrants have been issuedAvailability of anticipatory bail after issuance of non-bailable/arrester warrants - parity and consistency in grant of anticipatory bail based on co-ordinate bench order - absence of requirement for interrogation as a factor in granting anticipatory bail - Anticipatory bail was granted to the accused petitioners notwithstanding that non-bailable warrants had been issued. - HELD THAT: - The Court, having considered rival contentions, observed that a co-ordinate Bench had already granted anticipatory bail to a similarly placed accused (Manju Tanwar) and that no interrogation of the petitioners was required. While noting the contention that protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is ordinarily not available after filing of a complaint and issuance of arrest warrants and that the alternative remedy is to seek regular bail from the trial court, the Court did not adjudicate the merits of the underlying allegations. Acting on parity and the factual circumstance that interrogation was unnecessary, the Court exercised its discretion to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits or demerits of the case and confined its order to granting anticipatory bail with directions for surrender and furnishing of bail bonds to the concerned court. [Paras 5, 6]Anticipatory bail allowed; petitioners to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks and the concerned court shall accept bail bonds as deemed proper.Final Conclusion: Anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners on the stated facts (parity with a co-ordinate Bench order and absence of need for interrogation); petitioners directed to surrender within two weeks and the concerned court directed to accept bail bonds. Issues:1. Application for anticipatory bail under Sections 438 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)2. Comparison with a similar case where anticipatory bail was granted3. Arguments by the counsel for the accused petitioners and the Union of IndiaAnalysis:1. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Sections 438 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. due to a complaint registered against them for offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The lower court had issued non-bailable warrants against the accused petitioners. The petitioner's counsel argued that no interrogation was necessary, citing a previous case where anticipatory bail was granted to another accused person in a similar offense.2. Reference was made to a case decided by the Apex Court regarding the grant of anticipatory bail. The counsel for the accused petitioners relied on this case to support their plea for anticipatory bail.3. The Union of India opposed the anticipatory bail application, citing precedents such as P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement and Satpal Singh vs State of Punjab. It was argued that once arrest warrants are issued, the accused should seek regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. from the concerned court. The Union of India contended that protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not available after the issuance of arrest warrants.Considering the arguments presented by both parties, the court examined the facts and circumstances of the case. Noting that one of the accused persons had already been granted anticipatory bail and that no interrogation was necessary for the petitioners, the court decided to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioners. The court clarified that this decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. As a result, the accused petitioners were directed to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks, and the concerned court was instructed to accept the bail bonds as appropriate.