Anticipatory bail in serious economic offences may be refused where the accused evades trial despite charge-sheet and warrants.

Anticipatory bail was considered in an alleged economic offence involving cheating, forgery and use of forged shipping and related documents to secure undue financial gain and cause loss to the State exchequer. The charge-sheet had been filed, cognizance taken, and the applicant had been summoned, but he continued to evade appearance despite repeated non-bailable warrants. The court treated the matter as a serious economic offence and held that the principle that arrest is not invariably required after filing of a charge-sheet did not assist an accused who was not cooperating with the trial process. Anticipatory bail was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged cheating, forgery and use of forged documents in an economic offence, where charge-sheet had been filed, cognizance taken, and non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicant.

Analysis: The allegations concerned fraudulent use of forged shipping bills and related documents to obtain undue financial benefit and cause substantial loss to the State exchequer. The investigation had culminated in a charge-sheet, cognizance had been taken, and the applicant had been summoned to face trial. The applicant was avoiding appearance despite repeated non-bailable warrants. The reliance placed on the principle that arrest is not a prerequisite after filing of charge-sheet did not assist the applicant on the facts, since the present case involved an accused who was not cooperating with the trial process and the matter was treated as an economic offence of serious gravity.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was rightly declined.

Ratio Decidendi: In a serious economic offence involving forged documents and an accused who is evading appearance despite repeated process from the trial court, anticipatory bail may be refused notwithstanding the filing of charge-sheet.

---