1997 (11) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing an order passed by a sessions judge granting anticipatory bail to the respondent, a Division Bench of the High Court made the position worse for the Enforcement Directorate (for short, the "Directorate"). It necessitated the Directorate to move this court with the special leave petition. The officials of the Directorate wanted to interrogate the respondent in connection with recovery of certain documents and other materials in a raid conducted in the residential premises of the respondent. So they issued summons to the respondent under section 40 of the FERA to appear before the officials at New Delhi. But the respondent, instead of appearing in response to the summons, approached the High Court with a writ petition challenging the sum....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....P/179/ Cal/97/MLA/4852, dated June 13, 1997) issued by the Enforcement Directorate. But the petitioner must not be put on arrest till the applications pending disposal are decided. The petitioner is to attend on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, i.e., on 23rd June, 1997, to 27th June, 1997, at 8A, Lindsay Street and shall report to Shri M.L. Acharya, Chief Enforcement Officer, at 2o' clock on the aforesaid dates. The interrogation is to continue until 5o' clock for each day. The prayer for further interrogation is left open which will be considered on hearing the parties. Hearing to continue as before." Despite several postings thereafter and repeated requests made by the appellant for modification of the said order the Divi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an alternative strategy by filing yet another writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of the FERA and in that writ petition he again moved for interim reliefs but a single judge of the High Court, after hearing the respondent, declined to grant any relief to him. Yet another fact pointed out is that the respondent was successfully eluding from grilling interrogatories by adopting dilatory and contumacious tactics. Learned counsel for the respondent defended both orders on the premises that the respondent presented himself for being interrogated on many days subsequent to the High Court order and nothing incriminating was elicited from him so far and that the respondent is a sick person entitled to a pre-arre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... different from a post-arrest bail application (vide Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1985 SC 969, State rep. by the CBI v. Anil Sharma [1997] 7 JT 651 and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bimal Krishna Kundu [1997] 8 JT 382). The argument of learned counsel for the respondent that he made himself available for interrogation for several days after being armed with an order preventing his arrest is not of much relevance now because that is not an aspect which can be taken advantage of by the respondent in this case. Similarly, the contention that the respondent is a sick person is not enough to claim a pre-arrest bail order. Hence, we are not inclined to go into the dispute whether the respondent is suffering from any such health condition. ....