2012 (11) TMI 831 - HC - FEMA

Pre-arrest bail Purchase of land by Non resident - Violation of provisions of FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act) - William Singh Sandhu is a citizen of United States of America and is not an Indian citizen. There are restrictions in law on his right to purchase agricultural land in India. He has purchased agricultural land in India by giving the address of Gurvinder Singh as his address. William Singh Sandhu has already been arrested in the case and is said to have been released on regular bail. - While Gurvinder Singh is the attorney of the vendor who has no grouse in the matter, the other petitioner is the attesting witness of the sale deed - custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required in this case - case is based on documentary evidence for its proof. When William Singh Sandhu, the main accused has already been arrested and released on bail, the petitioners appear to be entitled to pre-arrest bail - interim anticipatory bail to petitioner allowed

Summary

Issues:
Pre-arrest bail in a case involving sections 420, 199, 200, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, and section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 for land purchase in contravention of FEMA.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Registration Act for purchasing land in Punjab allegedly in violation of FEMA. The complainant alleged that the main accused, a US citizen, purchased land in India after providing false information about his residence and violated several legal provisions. The petitioners, through their respective counsels, argued against the allegations. One petitioner claimed to be the attorney of the land seller and emphasized the absence of cheating due to a valid sale. The other petitioner, an attesting witness, questioned the complainant's standing to file the complaint and suggested ulterior motives by a family member of the main accused. The defense highlighted procedural lapses and lack of necessity for custodial interrogation.

The court acknowledged that the main accused, already arrested and released on bail, was the focal point of the case. It was noted that the petitioners' involvement and need for custodial interrogation would be determined during trial. Since no argument was presented for custodial interrogation of the petitioners, and the case relied on documentary evidence, the court deemed pre-arrest bail appropriate. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions for pre-arrest bail, subject to specified conditions under the Criminal Procedure Code.

In conclusion, the court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in the case involving alleged violations of various legal provisions related to land purchase under FEMA. The decision was based on the absence of custodial interrogation necessity, the main accused's prior arrest and release on bail, and the reliance on documentary evidence for the case. The court ordered the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation and granted absolute anticipatory bail to one of the petitioners.