Court overturns Non-Bailable Warrants, directs petitioners to surrender, and grants bail under suitable conditions.

The Court found that the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) against the petitioners was unjustified as the lower Court failed to provide a reason for not issuing bailable warrants first. The Court directed the petitioners to surrender physically and apply for bail, which should be granted under suitable conditions. The Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (CRLMCs) were allowed, overturning the NBW issuance.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Justifiability of the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) against the petitioners.
2. Whether the Court below should have issued bailable warrants instead of NBW.

Summary:

Issue 1: Justifiability of the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) against the petitioners

All four applications filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenge the order of the Court below issuing NBW against the petitioners, who are accused in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act). The accused were alleged to have committed criminal conspiracy, breach of trust, cheating, and forgery, and invested the proceeds of crime in assets in their names. The Court below took cognizance of the offences and issued summons for their appearance. Despite multiple adjournments and the accused appearing through counsel, they failed to appear physically, leading the Court to issue NBW on 20.04.2023.

Issue 2: Whether the Court below should have issued bailable warrants instead of NBW

The petitioners argued that the Court should have issued bailable warrants instead of NBW, as they were never arrested during the investigation and had engaged counsel to represent them. The counsel's failure to inform the petitioners of the proceedings led to their ignorance of the NBW issuance. The petitioners cited case laws emphasizing that NBW should not be issued casually and mechanically, and that personal liberty is paramount. The respondent, representing the Enforcement Directorate, argued that the petitioners had sufficient liberty to appear but failed to do so, and given the gravity of the allegations, NBW was justified.

Legal Precedents and Court's Analysis:

The Court referred to the case of Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, which emphasizes that NBW should be issued only when summons or bailable warrants are unlikely to produce the desired result. The Court noted that the impugned order did not cite any reason for issuing NBW without considering a bailable warrant. The Court also referred to the case of Vikas v. State of Rajasthan, reiterating that NBW should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

Conversely, the respondent cited the case of Shyam Sunder Singhvi v. Union of India, where the High Court of Rajasthan upheld the issuance of NBW in cases of grave economic offences. However, the Court noted that the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP in this case did not overrule the principles laid down in Inder Mohan Goswami.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that the issuance of NBW was not justified as the Court below did not provide any reason for not issuing a bailable warrant first. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable in law. The Court directed the petitioners to physically surrender before the Court below and move for bail, which should be granted on appropriate terms and conditions.

The CRLMCs were accordingly allowed.

---