2009 (12) TMI 1041 - SC - Indian Laws

Application for grant of anticipatory bail - Forgery - offences punishable under Sections 420 467 468 471 and 120B Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - We are of the view that the role of the Respondent No. 1 in the entire episode did not entitle him to the relief of Anticipatory Bail much less a blanket order of bail. However that is now a closed chapter. But what is of relevance is whether the High Court should have worded its order in such a way that it could be interpreted to mean as has been done by all concerned that the Respondent No. 1 was not required to even appear and surrender before the Court during the entire investigation stage and the trial. Taking advantage of the same the Respondent No. 1 has successfully avoided the Court from the very initial stage of investigation and even the trial. Such kind of an order is not contemplated u/s 438 Cr.P.C. as has been repeatedly explained by this Court. The said position has been clearly enunciated in Adri Dharan Das s case 2005 (2) TMI 817 - SUPREME COURT . Section 438 Cr.P.C. contemplates arrest at the stage of investigation and provides a mechanism for an accused to be released on bail should he be arrested during the period of investigation. Once the investigation makes out a case against him and he is included as an accused in the charge-sheet the accused has to surrender to the custody of the Court and pray for regular bail. On the strength of an order granting Anticipatory Bail an accused against whom charge has been framed cannot avoid appearing before the trial court. If what has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Respondent No. 1 has never appeared before the trial court is to be accepted it will lead to the absurd situation that charge was framed against the accused in his absence which would defeat the very purpose of Sub-section (2) of Section 240 Cr.P.C. Thus the order of the High Court dated 3rd July 2006 is modified to the extent that the Respondent No. 1 shall surrender before the Trial Court forthwith and pray for regular bail and the Trial Court shall dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law before proceeding further with the trial. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

Summary

Issues involved:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., Misuse of Anticipatory Bail, Legal interpretation of Section 438 Cr.P.C., Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail, Compliance with legal procedures during trial.

Analysis:

1. Grant of Anticipatory Bail: The appeal was filed by a bank against the grant of anticipatory bail to the Managing Director of a construction company, who was accused of fraudulently obtaining a loan. The High Court had granted anticipatory bail based on the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation due to seized documents and witness statements.

2. Misuse of Anticipatory Bail: The bank argued that the respondent was the mastermind behind the fraud, misappropriated funds, and had not cooperated with the investigation. The bank contended that the respondent should not have been granted blanket anticipatory bail given the seriousness of the alleged offenses.

3. Legal Interpretation of Section 438 Cr.P.C.: The bank argued that the High Court misapplied Section 438 Cr.P.C. by granting a blanket anticipatory bail without considering the respondent's direct involvement in the fraud. Reference was made to previous court decisions emphasizing the limited duration of anticipatory bail and the need for the accused to surrender for regular bail.

4. Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail: The bank sought the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted more than three years ago, emphasizing the respondent's failure to appear in court or surrender. The bank highlighted the necessity for the respondent to face trial and surrender before the court.

5. Compliance with Legal Procedures during Trial: The Supreme Court, after considering submissions from both parties and relevant legal precedents, modified the High Court's order. The respondent was directed to surrender before the Trial Court immediately and seek regular bail. The Trial Court was instructed to decide on the bail application in accordance with the law before proceeding with the trial, ensuring compliance with legal procedures.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues related to the grant, misuse, legal interpretation, cancellation of anticipatory bail, and compliance with legal procedures during the trial as addressed in the Supreme Court judgment.