Anticipatory bail refused in serious economic offences, while non-bailable warrants were kept in abeyance for trial court relief.

Non-bailable warrants were kept in abeyance to permit the petitioner to approach the trial court for cancellation and other relief, as the record did not conclusively establish service of summons and there was a reasonable apprehension of arrest before that step could be taken. Anticipatory bail was refused because the allegations disclosed serious economic offences involving fraud, forgery, conspiracy, and substantial financial loss; the Court treated pre-arrest bail as an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly, especially in such cases. The petitioner was left to seek appropriate relief before the trial court, which was to consider the matter uninfluenced by these observations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner should be kept in abeyance to enable him to approach the trial court for appropriate relief; (ii) Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of the allegations of serious economic offences and forgery.

Issue (i): Whether the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner should be kept in abeyance to enable him to approach the trial court for appropriate relief.

Analysis: The complaint and summoning proceedings were pending before the Special Court, and the petitioner contended that summons had not been duly served. The record before the Court did not conclusively establish the service issue. In those circumstances, the petitioner was permitted to approach the trial court and raise all objections there. At the same time, the Court found a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner might be arrested before such approach could be made.

Conclusion: The non-bailable warrants were directed to remain in abeyance till the next date of hearing, enabling the petitioner to move the trial court for cancellation and appropriate bail relief.

Issue (ii): Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of the allegations of serious economic offences and forgery.

Analysis: The allegations were of grave fraud involving huge financial loss, forged documents, and conspiracy in relation to corporate and banking transactions. The Court treated anticipatory bail as an extraordinary remedy and noted that it is to be exercised sparingly, particularly in economic offences that affect the financial fabric of society. On the facts, the seriousness of the accusations and the magnitude of the alleged cheating and forgery did not justify pre-arrest protection.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained only interim protection against immediate arrest by suspension of the warrants, but the substantive request for anticipatory bail failed and the matter was left for the trial court to consider any further relief uninfluenced by these observations.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary and sparingly exercised remedy, and it ought not to be granted in cases disclosing serious economic offences, fraud, and forgery of substantial magnitude.

---