TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Legality of arrests under special Act and CrPC s.41A applicability; interim bail refused for lack of merit</h1> Dominant issue: whether the legality of arrests under the special Act is justiciable under Article 226 and whether CrPC procedures (notably s.41A) apply. ... Seeking grant of interim bail - Seeking for grounds of arrest - legality of arrest of accused No.1 and 2/2nd petitioner and father of the 1st petitioner - it is contended that the grounds in the grounds of arrest or reasons in the reasons to believe are not justiciable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of RADHIKA AGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA [2025 (2) TMI 1162 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], considers this issue elaborately. The Apex Court holds that Cr.P.C., is applicable to proceedings of arrest under the provisions of the Act and the requirement of issuance of notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., is imperative. The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment considers various issues, right from applicability of the Cr.P.C., for proceedings of arrest. The Apex Court was following the earlier judgment in the case of ASHOK MUNILAL JAIN v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2017 (3) TMI 1642 - SUPREME COURT] and holds that in view of Section 4(2) of the Cr.P.C., the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C., would apply to the special statutes unless, expressly barred or prohibited. The Apex Court further holds that legality of arrest under the special enactment including the Act if challenged, the Court should be extremely loathe in exercising its power of judicial review. Frequent or causal interference in the functioning of the authorised officers who have been specially conferred with the powers to combat serious crimes may embolden the unscrupulous elements to commit such crimes. Therefore, minor procedural lapses on the part of the authorised officers may not be seen with magnifying glass. The submission of the learned senior counsel is that this Court should show mercy or sympathy and release the accused No. 2/petitioner No. 2 on bail. This submission if accepted, would be exercising jurisdiction on misplaced sympathy and would undoubtedly open pandora’s box, as if this Court would entertain the subject petition notwithstanding the finding of no illegality in the arrest proceedings and only on mercy. The mercy can vary from case to case; sympathy can also vary from case to case. Therefore, the facts in the case at hand cannot be termed as so exceptional, that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 r/w Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., should entertain the petition and grant interim bail. The petition found wanting in entertainability, for grant of interim bail, stands rejected. Issues: (i) Whether the petition seeking quashment of arrest memo and grant of interim bail to accused No.2 should be entertained and interim bail granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.Analysis: The Court examined applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure to arrests under GST enactments and the scope of judicial review over arrests under special statutes. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's guidance that Cr.P.C. procedures apply to special Acts unless expressly excluded and that arrests under GST/other special Acts attract limited judicial review confined to verifying whether statutory and constitutional safeguards were followed, whether the authorised officer was empowered, whether 'reasons to believe' were based on material in possession, and whether grounds of arrest were communicated. The Court reviewed authorities cautioning against routine interference with arrests under special Acts and emphasising that substantial or manifest non-compliance is required for courts to quash arrests. The Court considered the petitioners' humanitarian plea (care of minor children) and authorities on exercise of writ jurisdiction for interim bail, but held that sympathy or mercy alone does not justify exercising extraordinary jurisdiction where procedural safeguards and material for arrest are not shown to be blatantly non-compliant. The arrest memo and grounds were detailed and on their face not shown to suffer manifest arbitrariness or gross non-compliance; the appropriate remedy for bail lies before the competent bail court.Conclusion: The petition is not maintainable for granting interim bail and the petition for quashment/grant of interim bail is rejected; petitioners are at liberty to approach the regular bail court which shall consider any bail application without delay in accordance with law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
