9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC based on discretion exercised by the High Court in a case involving a fraud of Rs. 133 crores with violations of FERA, kickbacks, and a criminal conspiracy. Analysis: The case involved a massive fraud of Rs. 133 crores through a criminal conspiracy where a company paid a substantial amount to middlemen as kickbacks in a deal for the supply of urea. The Enforcement Directorate initiated an investigation under FERA due to violations related to kickbacks received in India. The respondent, fearing arrest, approached the High Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, which was granted initially on medical grounds related to spondylitis. The Enforcement Director challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the discretion under Section 438 was improperly exercised. The legal position on anticipatory bail, as established by the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizes the wise and prudent exercise of judicial discretion in granting such relief. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case records submitted by the Enforcement Director, found that the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's decision was flawed as the records indicated an accusing finger against the respondent, and the magnitude of the criminal conspiracy and economic offense warranted stern legal action. The Court highlighted that the completion of the investigation was hindered by the respondent's avoidance of interrogation, and the fact that other accused were released on bail due to investigative delays should not have favored the respondent's bail plea. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order granting anticipatory bail, and dismissed the respondent's application under Section 438 of the CrPC. The judgment emphasized the need for a prudent exercise of judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail, especially in cases involving serious economic offenses and criminal conspiracies.
|
